So...... who's going to be the next President???

[johnretired]

Have you seen this?
It makes you think!!!!
http://theobamahustle.wordpress.com/201 ... al-father/

[enigma57]

Haven't seen that one, John. Malcom X?!? Now that's a bit far fetched.

My research indicates he was indeed fathered by Obama Sr. and likely born in Hawaii. Whether he was ever a natural born US citizen eligible to hold the public office he now 'occupies' is something we may never know, however. That would have to be determined by a court of law and the legal documents he has thus far hidden from public scrutiny would have to be produced in order for any court to be able to come to a just conclusion one way or the other.

Its complicated. There are 3 sets of circumstances that most who have commented on the issue of his eligibility seem to miss......

1. His Mother was a minor when Obama Sr. knocked her up. There is no record of their having been married. Which is fortunate for the late Obama Sr...... As he had a wife and 3 children back in Kenya at the time...... And had he married Ms. Dunham...... He would have been guilty of the crime of bigamy...... As well as that of statutory rape (she had not reached the legal age of consent when she became pregnant).

2. He was adopted by his Step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an oil company executive, at age 5 when he was taken to live in Indonesia. At that time, he became a citizen of Indonesia and his name was legally changed to Barry Soetoro. There being no international agreement between the US and Indonesia allowing for dual citizenship (then or now)...... And his never having applied for US citizenship afterward...... It would seem that he is in fact, an Indonesian citizen at present.

3. And having never legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro to that of his birth father...... His legal name remains Barry Soetoro. He merely began using the name Obama when he transferred to a college on the mainland. And no...... He has never applied for a visa to legally enter the US and reside here.

So it would appear that an illegal alien was sworn in as 'President' (twice) that fateful day nearly 3-1/2 years ago...... Under an assumed name.

If this is indeed the case...... Think of the implications......

Harry

[David Redszus]

So it would appear that an illegal alien was sworn in as 'President' (twice) that fateful day nearly 3-1/2 years ago...... Under an assumed name.

If this is indeed the case...... Think of the implications......

So just what are the implications? Why does it matter where, or under which circumstances, one is born? While it may have mattered a great deal during colonial times (given the conflict of allegiance with England), globalization of citizenship is well on its way. Dual citizenship is becoming increasingly evident, and not just for tax evasion.

What really matters is to find the very best qualified individual for the office. Our current political selection process does no such thing.

The same must be said for Congress and ALL public servants. I said public SERVANTS, not public rulers.

They can't run their own lives, they have no business trying to run mine, or yours.

[Cogburn]

Maybe he is a natural born citizen...

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/film-preside ... ack-obama/

[enigma57]

We may never know the truth of the matter, Cogburn.

The really sad part...... Beyond the damage this man and his radical cohorts have done to our nation whilst in office......

Is that the gravitas of the office of the Presidency is presently reduced to something not unlike one of those tabloid TV shows I will not watch...... Where DNA samples are taken of several men to determine which (if any) of them fathered a child with a particular woman. Very sad.

Shaking head,

Harry

[enigma57]

So it would appear that an illegal alien was sworn in as 'President' (twice) that fateful day nearly 3-1/2 years ago...... Under an assumed name.

If this is indeed the case...... Think of the implications......

So just what are the implications? Why does it matter where, or under which circumstances, one is born? While it may have mattered a great deal during colonial times (given the conflict of allegiance with England), globalization of citizenship is well on its way. Dual citizenship is becoming increasingly evident, and not just for tax evasion.

What really matters is to find the very best qualified individual for the office. Our current political selection process does no such thing.

The same must be said for Congress and ALL public servants. I said public SERVANTS, not public rulers.

They can't run their own lives, they have no business trying to run mine, or yours.

David, it matters because......

If it is ever proven in a court of law that the man is ineligible to serve in the office he now 'occupies'......

Every bit of legislation he has signed 'into law'...... Every appointment to the Supreme Court and other judicial or other government appointments he has made...... Every international treaty he has signed...... Indeed, every policy his 'administration' has put into force since his being sworn in that fateful day......

Would be null and void.

That's what I meant by 'think of the implications'.

And FWIW...... I agree with you 100% regarding public servants and the fact that they have no business trying to run other people's lives.

And that our present method of selecting political candidates (including those running for President)...... Does little to ensure that the very best qualified individual will be elected to public office

Best regards,

Harry

[David Redszus]

Harry, thanks for the quiet and intelligent response.
If (problematical) Obama we shown to be a non-citizen, it would still have to go before the US Supreme Court for clarification and legal implications. They will be hotly disputed for many years; a problem the Court would seek to avoid.

My point is that the natural citizen requirement is obsolete. In a global enviornment, it should be incumbent upon us to find the very best qualified candidate, regardless of place of birth. We do that in major, global corporations with great success.

On a second, and perhaps, more important front, one might ask: "Just what does it mean to be a US Citizen?"
There are no qualifications, no tests to pass, no service required, no required knowledge; nothing is needed.
Except place of birth.

Perhaps this country could benefit by applying a compentcy requirement before allowing people to vote. An eligble voter should be able to show the ability to read, to be informed of the isssues and consequences, and have a vested interest in the outcome of any election. Perhaps evidence of paid taxes, public service (military, educational or medical), or the like should be required. It is far more difficult to get a drivers license than to be able to vote for our highest public servant.

Ya cain't vote if ya don't have skin in the game.

[johnretired]

Harry, thanks for the quiet and intelligent response.
If (problematical) Obama we shown to be a non-citizen, it would still have to go before the US Supreme Court for clarification and legal implications. They will be hotly disputed for many years; a problem the Court would seek to avoid.

My point is that the natural citizen requirement is obsolete. In a global enviornment, it should be incumbent upon us to find the very best qualified candidate, regardless of place of birth. We do that in major, global corporations with great success.

On a second, and perhaps, more important front, one might ask: "Just what does it mean to be a US Citizen?"
There are no qualifications, no tests to pass, no service required, no required knowledge; nothing is needed.
Except place of birth.Perhaps this country could benefit by applying a compentcy requirement before allowing people to vote. An eligble voter should be able to show the ability to read, to be informed of the isssues and consequences, and have a vested interest in the outcome of any election. Perhaps evidence of paid taxes, public service (military, educational or medical), or the like should be required. It is far more difficult to get a drivers license than to be able to vote for our highest public servant.

Ya cain't vote if ya don't have skin in the game.

Do you realize that what you are saying, says the highest law of this country, the constitution, is obsolete?
The issue is " NATURAL BORN" also.
I do agree with your other comments about competentcy.
And of course I feel every voter must be a tax payer/ employeed.
Those who work for the government should also not be allowed to vote on some issues.
If you do not have SKIN in the game, why are you allowed to vote in a big spender? Who will in return give you a free ride

[Cogburn]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... sia-Hawaii

[howey]

As a very distant, but interested, observer, I have a couple of observations and a couple of questions.

In Australia, I would consider myself centre aligned, with a very slight lean to the right on economic policy, and a very slight lean to the left on social justice issues. If my positions were transposed on to the American political scale, that would probably place me firmly in the middle of the left group, as I think the Centre in the US is to the right of centre in AUS. Not that it matters to any of you, or to this conversation, just being up front.

Politics in the US seems to polarize people far more than any other developed nation I have observed. Passions seem to run deep. I often wonder how the political divide there effects social settings. Does it get to the point where you find it impossible to be friends with someone who holds a contrary political bias to your own?

Am I correct in recalling that your elections are held on a Tuesday? Is there a reason for this? Or is it just a convention? Does it make it hard for people in work to vote? I'd have thought that a weekend poll would allow a higher percentage of eligible voters to vote and give you a more representative indication of the public sentiment.

[enigma57]

Howey, you are spot on with regard to the correlation between U.S. and Australian political 'center' at present. America is a center-right nation, generally. So your described orientation would seem to place you either middle 'left' or amongst those who consider themselves to be libertarians here.

When asked to describe their political orientation, approximately 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservative, 20% as liberal and 8% as libertarian, with the remainder describing themselves as 'moderate', 'middle of the road', 'centrist', etc. (for all intents and purposes, undecided).

With regard to those who consider themselves libertarian...... Its not easy to place an accurate definition on that politically, as they run the gamut from those who consider themselves to be 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal'...... To those who are wild eyed anarchists by nature.

You are correct in that most Americans have deeply held convictions. And those convictions (or lack thereof) determine one's political orientation (if any). Passions do run deep. And yes, there are those who seek to divide Americans one against the other for perceived political and monetary gain. George Soros for one, has spent billions over the past 12 - 14 years in his efforts to polarize Americans having differing political views. 'Divide and conquer' is a very old and effective stratagem. Sadly, he and those like minded have succeeded...... For now. It wasn't always like that here and it won't remain like that indefinitely, either. Changing tides.

You ask if we find it impossible to be friends with those holding contrary political bias to our own. This is a matter of mutual respect. I personally have no problem doing so as long as the other party is civil and does not attempt to impose their views on me. In such instances, we can 'agree to disagree' on certain issues. Doesn't mean we cannot be friends. And in some cases, its best to leave politics out of our discourse when interacting with others. There is a lot more to life than politics.

Why are our elections held on Tuesdays? One of the more definitive answers I have found states it thusly......

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_US_el ... on_Tuesday

"When election day was selected by Congress in 1845 the country was mainly an agricultural society. November was chosen because the fall harvest was over and it was still mild enough for farmers and rural workers to be able to travel to the polls over unimproved roads.

Tuesday was chosen because most of the country had to travel a great distance to the polls in their counties. Monday was not reasonable because that would mean that people would have to start travel on Sunday and that would interfere with church services. The second Tuesday was chosen for two reasons, one, to keep election day from falling on All Saints Day and secondly, merchants were accustomed to doing their books on the first of the month."

Best regards,

Harry

P.S. >>>> A caution...... Do avoid forming opinions based upon what you may see or hear in the media. The media here are extremely left-biased generally and the majority of opinions expressed reflect that. With regard to articles purporting to be 'news'...... Sadly, you will find this bias as well. In my view, the majority of the media here are little more than propaganda disseminating venues. And as such, solidly behind perpetuating the current radical socialist 'administration'.

[howey]

Best regards,

Harry

P.S. >>>> A caution...... Do avoid forming opinions based upon what you may see or hear in the media. The media here are extremely left-biased generally and the majority of opinions expressed reflect that. With regard to articles purporting to be 'news'...... Sadly, you will find this bias as well. In my view, the majority of the media here are little more than propaganda disseminating venues. And as such, solidly behind perpetuating the current radical socialist 'administration'.

Thanks for your response Harry. I think we get both ends of the spectrum here, as far as exposure to the US domestic news market. We get a feed of some NPR radio programs on our national broadcaster's news radio service. We also get some relayed material from the Fox news network. Added to these we get our our own domestic news services' world news coverage. I'd like to think I am reasonable, rational and sceptical enough to sift through most of the spin, although I'm sure some of the well crafted spin does have some subliminal effect.

I will continue watching as an interested observer. If nothing else, the whole roadshow that is the US presedential election provides entertainment the likes of which no other system can hope to match.

[rce4csh]

Just exactly what is social justice??? The gentleman from Austrailia makes this as a point of his political postion. Is there such a thing as social injustice? What determines if justice is served socially? I ask this question to this point to frame perspective of members here.

[enigma57]

Rce4csh, I believe howie mentioned 'social justice' in the context of defining left of center and right of center philosophically, which in turn carries over to one's worldview and political orientation as well. It is actually a very good benchmark in that respect.

America was founded upon certain principles, amongst them being the principle of equal opportunity for all...... Outcomes being the result of each individual's efforts, skills, merited success...... And yes, the unpredictable variables of fortune and dumb luck.

So-called 'social justice' runs counter to this, however. It has to do with the notion that there should be equal outcomes for all, regardless of merit, ability, or effort on one's part. The means for accomplishing this involves various schemes aimed at 'redistribution of wealth' from those who have earned or inherited it...... To those who have not. As you may imagine, individual property rights are not respected by proponents of 'social justice', which is a leftist concept central to both socialism and communism.

You may find this article of interest, should you wish to explore the subject in more depth......

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guid ... munism.htm

As an aside, I have found that so long as man's laws and practices parallel those laid out for us in scripture as a guide for living...... We do OK. And when man(kind) chooses to diverge from the path G-d has set before us, things really do not go well at all.

One of the most clearly stated proof texts in scripture addresses justice and fairness. It admonishes us not to make judgements on the basis of a person's wealth or station in life...... Neither favouring rich over poor...... Nor poor over rich when rendering judgement. In other words, make judgements solely on the merits of the case. That principle of fairness applies not only to judges and juries...... But to how people should treat one another in their everyday life as well.

Leviticus, Chapter 19, verse 15......

"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour."

Best regards,

Harry

[howey]

Sorry for not replying promptly, I have been away in a remote location for work, and haven't had the ability to access the web. Enigma basically describes social justice as I see it, although I don't count myself as a proponent of socialist/communist "equal for all" philosophy. My position, which I readily admit is left of centre, is more that some aspects of a civilised society are measured not just by dollars and cents.

I'm not particularly eloquent, so please forgive me for what may read as an ambiguous statement, I am struggling to find words to describe my thoughts. I think a society that functions in a way that allows individuals and groups to flourish and prosper, like most western societies, has a responsibility to also ensure that those who are least capable and/or least fortunate in that same society are able to function. How this is achieved is where I find the greatest disagreements, not the general premise itself. I don't want people to feel I am insulting them in some way, as I know some "lefties" do, by saying "Only those of the left have compassion and care about the plight of the less fortunate". I genuinely believe that the overwhelming majority of people care, we just differ on the best way to care.

To try and justify my claim to not be a socialist/communist, let me go on record as saying that the welfare system here in Australia is a joke. We have what many would term a "middle class welfare" culture. We have government payments to even the richest of families for healthcare rebates, baby bonuses for having a child, tax rebates to nearly all families. These payments are often referred to as the "plasma TV bonus", as the families who recieve them are often in a comfortable position with no problem providing the necessities of life, and therefore spend their rebates on luxuries. If we scaled back these types of payments drastically, our basic universal healthcare and state education could be better funded and more capital would be freed up to be reinvested and provide more opportunities for people in work to earn enough to afford the luxuries in their own right.