Hawaii challenged as to natural born status

[JohnnyBz00LS]

If there was a "concise definition" then there would be no constitutional question necessitating the clarification of the SCOTUS. Most of the constitutional arguments concerning Obama's natural born status are due to the vagueness in the idea of what makes someone a natural born citizen and Obama's personal history on this falling into that "grey area". Basically what your question serves to do is rhetorically shift the burden of proof to justifying the standard.

OK, so you admit the definition if vague and requires some interpretation.

Yet you also claim your Birther's interpretation is "correct" and the mountains of legal decisions and precidents against your interpretation are "in-correct".

Good luck with that.

 

[Calabrio]

Yet you also claim your Birther's interpretation is "correct" and the mountains of legal decisions and precidents against your interpretation are "in-correct".

Why'd you do that? Why be lazy and dishonest?
The point is, there is no "mountain of legal decisions and precedent" against this view of the constitution. To the contrary, the intention of it is clearly to prevent something like this from happening, though it has never been challenged.

 

[shagdrum]

Nope
Unless you are a supreme court justice.

So, to make sure we both understand what you are saying here; a Supreme Court Justice should be able to define the concept of "natural born citizen" as they see fit. That would mean no concern for ascertaining the original intent of the Framer's or conforming as closely as reasonable possible to the Framer's intent.

So, what are your answers (yes or no shag) on these questions?

A definite no on both questions.

Until then, the current policy and decisions are that if you are born on US soil it equals natural citizen, parents don't come into the equation.

But that is not current policy. Arguably, if you are born on U.S. soil, due to precedent (not actual law) you are a U.S. citizen. But that says nothing about being a natural born citizen.

That is why this is a grey area. We know being born to two American citizens qualifies you as a natural born citizen, but beyond that, things become questionable.

 

[shagdrum]

Now that others...have made the true issue at hand to be clear, the question becomes whether or not a person born on US soil is in fact a citizen whether or not both parents were citizens.

It is not quite that. When it comes to weather or not a baby born on U.S. soil (regardless or parentage) is a U.S. citizen, the answer is no, according to the Constitution (14th Amendment). But, due to distortion of the 14th Amendment the precedent is that a person born on American soil is an American citizen.

But that doesn't mean that they are a Natural Born citizen. That is the requirement per the constitution. Not just that they are a citizen, but that they are a Natural Born citizen.

As Fox & shag are pointing out, this issue is not exeactly spelled out in the Constitution.

Right. The term "natural born citizen" is in the Constitution, but it is unclear what exactly qualifies as a "natural born citizen".

In my opinion, born on US soil alone should be grounds for citizenship.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, for it to have any legal persuasion to it, you would need to show a textual basis (founding documents,writings of the framers, etc.) for your opinion. Otherwise it comes across as completely arbitrary.

But this is a decision for a Justice to make, and this is where I would agree with Foxpaws that this is a fair case that they should make a ruling on to clear up questions like this in the future.

Yep. A "constitutional question". However, the only way that can be answered is in a case coming before the supreme court that raises that constitutional question. When it comes to "Natural Born" status, this is the first case in 233 years that would actually raise this question before the SCOTUS.

In the meantime, just because yourself and a few other people hold the opinion that citizenship requires two citizen parents, does not mean he should be removed from office.

However, the burden of proof, Constitutionally, is on any president or potential president to prove that they are a Natural Born citizen. If that is unclear, then they are ineligible unless and until it is clear that they are a Natural Born citizen. The standard is not simply thrown out if it is unclear weather or not they meet the standard.

 

[foxpaws]

So, to make sure we both understand what you are saying here; a Supreme Court Justice should be able to define the concept of "natural born citizen" as they see fit. That would mean no concern for ascertaining the original intent of the Framer's or conforming as closely as reasonable possible to the Framer's intent.

The justices should make decisions on what they believe the framers intended, or how they perceive the case 'fits' into the mold left behind by the framers.

I guess I didn't either understand or make myself understood. The justices need to hear a case like this (believe me, they won't hear this one, it doesn't fit the precedent that people on both sides want to go through to the high court addressing citizenship, type of citizenship, etc. regarding people born on American soil). Then they will decide as they see fit. They see things (ideally) according to the constitution. Not a personal decision, but a professional decision.

Sorry if I confused the issue.

But that is not current policy. Arguably, if you are born on U.S. soil, due to precedent (not actual law) you are a U.S. citizen. But that says nothing about being a natural born citizen.

That is why this is a grey area. We know being born to two American citizens qualifies you as a natural born citizen, but beyond that, things become questionable.

Current policy? Do you have any cases where there has been a decision regarding someone born on US soil and if they were or weren't declared a natural citizen?

How do we know that being born to two American citizens qualifies you as a 'natural born citizen?' Has that been hiding in the constitution and I have failed to find it up until this point?

 

[foxpaws]

However, the burden of proof, Constitutionally, is on any president or potential president to prove that they are a Natural Born citizen. If that is unclear, then they are ineligible unless and until it is clear that they are a Natural Born citizen. The standard is not simply thrown out if it is unclear weather or not they meet the standard.

Shag, Obama apparently satisfied 'burden of proof' by being placed on the ballot in all 50 states, DOC, and our territories. There aren't any other people that need to be satisfied other than the secretaries of state, unless a court declares otherwise.
He has met the requirement of law.

 

[shagdrum]

Current policy? Do you have any cases where there has been a decision regarding someone born on US soil and if they were or weren't declared a natural citizen?

I am not going to go look it up, but the whole provision in the 14th amendment which is now used to justify "anchor babies" as citizens was clearly not originally intended for that. In fact, the person who wrote that part of the amendment is on record on the floor or the House (or senate?) specifically rejecting that notion.

I cited the exact quote in one of the earlier massive threads on this subject.

How do we know that being born to two American citizens qualifies you as a 'natural born citizen?' Has that been hiding in the constitution and I have failed to find it up until this point?

Because that is what the founding generation clearly understood it to mean. I don't remember which president was the first not to be born under British rule, but when that grandfather clause in the constitution no longer applied, the Framers were still around and didn't raise an issue over it. That is an indicator of their understanding of this area.

While we don't know precisely where the line in what is and isn't a natural born citizen according to the Framers, we do know some things that do qualify and don't qualify as a natural born citizen according to them. For instance, a french citizen is not a natural born American citizen and someone born to two American citizens is clearly a natural born citizen. It is where, specifically, in between those two points the Framers drew the line on natural born status that is the question.

Shag, Obama apparently satisfied 'burden of proof' by being placed on the ballot in all 50 states, DOC, and our territories. There aren't any other people that need to be satisfied other than the secretaries of state, unless a court declares otherwise.
He has met the requirement of law.

That argument is a non sequiter. "Apparently" doesn't prove that he met the burden of proof; it only assumes that. Simply going through a procedure doesn't mean that the burden of proof is met.

You know that all those states simply go on what Hawaii says.

The Secretary of State in Hawaii could have simply assumed, as many people do, that having a COLB means you are a natural born citizen and given the OK. He might not have understood the loose standards in Hawaii concerning COLB's at the time of Obama's birth, or the unique parentage concerning Obama, or the nuances of the natural born clause.

If that secretary of state gave the OK when Obama wasn't a natural born citizen, then Obama didn't meet the legal requirement. All that means is that he has gone through the procedure to meet the requirement and someone along that line got sloppy.

So, again, to argument that because Obama has been cleared by the various Secretaries of State means he is a natural born citizen is a non sequiter. For it to be anything other then a fallacious argument, it needs to exclude those other, very realistic possibilities.

 

[foxpaws]

I am not going to go look it up, but the whole provision in the 14th amendment which is now used to justify "anchor babies" as citizens was clearly not originally intended for that. In fact, the person who wrote that part of the amendment is on record on the floor or the House (or senate?) specifically rejecting that notion.

But, shag - nothing made it into the constitution. The author of that part of the amendment didn't get anything else, any other provisions regarding 'citizenship' and types of citizenship written into the constitution. You can 'interpret' what he meant or intended, but the country didn't vote any 'intentions' into law - just the amendment as it is written.

While we don't know precisely where the line in what is and isn't a natural born citizen according to the Framers, we do know some things that do qualify and don't qualify as a natural born citizen according to them. For instance, a french citizen is not a natural born American citizen and someone born to two American citizens is clearly a natural born citizen. It is where, specifically, in between those two points the Framers drew the line on natural born status that is the question.

So, unless that question is cleared up - you can only go by what the constitution states - so, no parentage qualifications are written into law... The court would have to 'interpret'... correct?

So, again, to argument that because Obama has been cleared by the various Secretaries of State means he is a natural born citizen is a non sequiter. For it to be anything other then a fallacious argument, it needs to exclude those other, very realistic possibilities.

But, you have to assume currently that Obama has met burden of proof. At this point the assumption is that the secretaries of state saw what they needed to see. The burden of proof is actually on someone like Monster to contest the 'word' of the secretaries of state, not Obama's proof.

Chain of responsibility here. Proof was provided and approved.

 

[shagdrum]

But, shag - nothing made it into the constitution. The author of that part of the amendment didn't get anything else, any other provisions regarding 'citizenship' and types of citizenship written into the constitution. You can 'interpret' what he meant or intended, but the country didn't vote any 'intentions' into law - just the amendment as it is written.

Ah, he got the citizenship clause that he authored into the amendment. It is the part of the Constitution and the law of the land today.

So, unless that question is cleared up - you can only go by what the constitution states - so, no parentage qualifications are written into law... The court would have to 'interpret'... correct?

No, you go by what the Constitution intended (which includes what the Constitution states).

Since it is vague, this is something that the SCOTUS should clarify as much as they can. The term "interpretation" has gotten defined down so much that it serves as justification for justices manipulating and distorting the constitution to their own political ends, which is not what they are empowered to do. "Clarify" is a much more accurate term.

Look at your approach; if the Constitution is vague in some area, then you simply apply what is explicitly written as it would be understood today, without any consideration of the original intent. Any understanding becomes completely arbitrary and there is no reason to take a case to the SCOTUS to clarify any, "Constitutional question". It would basically make the standards and restrictions spelled out in the Constitution irrelevant if they are in any way "vague"; able to be ignored. That is a notion you already rejected in post #39 of this thread.

But, you have to assume currently that Obama has met burden of proof.

Again, no. To take that approach is to make anything falling into a vague area of the constitution perfectly acceptable and negate the need for the SCOTUS to clarify any "Constitutional question". That is not the way the government works nor is it at all logical.

That standard would effectively disregard any restriction that is vague in it's application to a given situation; something you have explicitly rejected already.

At this point the assumption is that the secretaries of state saw what they needed to see. The burden of proof is actually on someone like Monster to contest the 'word' of the secretaries of state, not Obama's proof.

Again, assumption! That doesn't prove anything and so it is incapable of meeting any burden of proof. You cannot simply assume something to meet a burden of proof.

The whole point of the Secretaries of State certifying this is to serve as a safeguard to insure that the Constitutional standards are met in this instance. They don't dictate weather or not a standard has been met.

If a nuclear reactor like Chernobyl malfunctions and kills people due to inadequate safeguards, does the fact that it had those safeguards in place mean that the reactor didn't malfunction?

If a government has checks and balances/separation of powers in place to prevent corruption and abuses of power, does that mean that corruption and abuses of power don't exist in that government?

Again, going through the process designed to insure against something does not conclusively prove that the something in question didn't make it through that process somehow.

Chain of responsibility here. Proof was provided and approved.

Evidence was provided that in any other state and/or with any other candidate would have been enough to prove Natural Born status. But due to the unique nature of both the policies of the Hawaii and the candidate's background, that evidence provided is not adequate to meet the burden of proof.

 

[fossten]

Love how fox continually and wrongly substitutes 'proof' for 'evidence.'

Sort of like the way she substituted 'strain' for 'species.'

 

[MonsterMark]

I have, and the constitution doesn't define natural born citizen as you are defining it Monster.

Perhaps you could copy and paste the section that you are referring to for all of us to check out...

To think that our founding fathers intended on letting every tom,dick and harry become president regardless of who they were related to is preposterous.

Leo Donofrio has the best review of the heart of this issue.

Please stop calling this a birth certificate or place of birth issue. It is not and is disengenous of anyone if they do.
This is all about preserving our Constitution for future generations. Once we cross the line, how do you get back up the slippery slope. Everything becomes fair game if we can't even ensure the our President is legally able to serve.

Here's Leo:

Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.

Posted in Uncategorized on July 30, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
[Update in red below 10:25AM]

The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history. One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.

I can understand such reliance. The passage below has been confusing for me as well. Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief. I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.

However, it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent.

Here’s the infamous passage:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens.

And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.

Have another look:

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

Do you see the difference?

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

But that’s not what they said.

- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.

- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.

- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.

Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.

Here’s the final holding of the case:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)

This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.

If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.

I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.

My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.

This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court. Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President. But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.

I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command. The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them.

SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.

I personally don’t care who the President is anymore. I’ll never care again. Both McCain and Obama have damaged the office and this nation severely by their willingness to put us through this. It doesn’t matter who the President is. We’ll still be at war. We will still have poverty, hatred, racism, fascism, sarcasm, nukes, etc… the new boss is the same as the old boss. We do get fooled again. Everytime. But if we let this sit and the chain of command erodes… Goodbye Ms. American Pie.

 

[MonsterMark]

Do you now understand what Obama is doing to this Country? He should show the certificate before the fracture becomes unrepairable.

I warned you guys over and over about the upcoming civil war in this Country. It is right around the corner.

Either Obama is a NBC and we all move forward

OR

Obama isn't a NBC and therefore ineligible (however sad the revelation may be) and President Obama should voluntarily step aside for the sake of the Country, and as Leo Donofrio so perfectly put it, "before the chain of command erodes".

 

[Bob Hubbard]

MonsterMark, I have a suggestion you should consider.
Even before the election, during the campaign, your post leaned in the direction away from the chosen one, and once elected you have carried this vendetta through countless threads all over the political forum.
You are no further along in your quest to have Obama removed from office because you think he is not qualified, and your basic cause to get too the bottom of the true meaning of nbc as put forth in the constitution.
You must know that posting as you have on an online site is at best, fruitless.
Why don't you seek some "real" action by gathering all your post on this subject, print them out, and mail copies to all members of the surpreme court.
That way, instead of wasting you time and efforts needlessly here on the internet you just might strike a cord in the court where it would count.
It is never going to amount to a hill of beans on this or any other web forum.
It makes for entertainment, and that is all.
You have been posting for months now regarding Obama, and what have you acheived?
Absolutely NADA.
You quote this and that, link this link that, and still you remain as frustrated as ever with no real accomplishment.
That frustration is very evident in your post of late.
My friend, you need to take a rest, you are beating a dead horse.
It makes one ask just what is your agenda?
Surely it has to be more than love of country and it's constitution that drives you in this Obama frenzy.
Bob.

 

[MonsterMark]

Surely it has to be more than love of country and it's constitution that drives you in this Obama frenzy.

He's a Usurper and a Marxist. Doesn't take anymore than that to create that "frenzy" I will admit.argue2

 

[fossten]

My friend, you need to take a rest, you are beating a dead horse.
It makes one ask just what is your agenda?
Surely it has to be more than love of country and it's constitution that drives you in this Obama frenzy.
Bob.

In all fairness, Bob, as an admitted racist you run the risk of projecting your own views onto Bryan. Your credibility is suspect in making a comment like that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In all fairness, Bob, as an admitted racist you run the risk of projecting your own views onto Bryan. Your credibility is suspect in making a comment like that.

Foss i am only trying to get to the reason behind his endless posting and bashing of Obama.
Frankly I don't think it is love of country and it's constitution that is driving him.
To be honest, I think the only difference between his feelings about Obama and mine are, I admit I don't like him because he is black.
If one goes back and re-reads his post for the last year, it is obvious there is something driving this constant attack on Obama, and it goes far beyond love for the country.
To say he is obsessed with the legitimacy of Obama's birth, is an understatement.
There has to be more to this than meets the eye.
Of course, he will deny it is anything other than the birth and constitution that are driving him, but it is more than obvious too me (and perhaps many others, I can't speak for them) he is definetely on the warpath for a reason.
I am not trying to push him into a cornor, but rather ask what his true agenda is concerning his unrelenting attack on the president.
I could understand a couple of post on the subject, but this has been a constant attack since Obama came into the picture.
As good or bad as the U.S.A. is, nothing that comes to mind would justify the barage of hate coming from him, aimed at the president.
I didn't vote for Obama as you know, and I have stated many times I do not like him, and as a leader he stinks.
Monst calls him a marxsist and usurper.
If that's what he thinks, that is fine with me, he is entitled to his opinion.
I don't think the president is either of those.
I DO however feel it is the people behind Obama , telling him what too say and do that are the real Marxsist and usurpers.
Obama is a puppet, and those working for him, behind the scenes are the driving force of the administration.
I have taken the road that says, he won the election, live with it.
On the other hand, Monst keeps on digging and getting nowhere.
Like I said, it is a dead horse.
Bob.

 

[MonsterMark]

To be honest, I think the only difference between his feelings about Obama and mine are, I admit I don't like him because he is black.

I have to hop on a plane right now but I can't leave this lay for a minute longer.

I can't tell you how terribly offended I am by your comment. Don't project your internal biases and prejudices onto me.

I've hired dozens and dozens of minorities over the years. I've hired women pregnant with babies (that have even named their kids after me). I've hired people with disabilities of one sort or another. I've hired African-Americans, Puerto-Ricans, Mexican-Americans and i'm sure some Mexicans at some point. I've hired Hmong that couldn't speak a word of English. I've hired ex-cons fresh out of jail.

I've tried to share the American dream with as many people as possible. I've worked for myself almost all my adult life save for car sales to put myself thru college.

You have no idea who I am or what I've done with my life.

Your confusion about me and Obama is quite baffling.

I dislike Obama because he is everything I abhor about the leftists and liberals in this Country.

I am an entrepenuer and a capitalist. Obama is a government lackie and a marxist. I am not the one that spent 20 years going to a racist church and listening to the hate whitey and hate America speech every Sunday. I am not the one who went to get his hair cut in an islamic barbershop. I don't have communist friends. I wasn't raised and schooled by communists.

Your deflection is hereby rejected in whole.

Shame on you for letting your personal convictions project onto me.

I couldn't stand Obama from day one because he is everything I hate about America.

Race has nothing to do with it. One of my best friends (and still is) from high school is black. Guess what? He hates Obama too. I guess you'll just blow that off as him being an Uncle-Tom.

You obviously changed your tune about Obama right after his election because you are probably expecting to be able to suck off the teat of his socialist regime. Good luck with that!

Now I'm late. Thanks. I needed this extra 15 minutes to get patted down and have my luggage torn through like I must endure everytime I travel because I happened to have bought a one-way ticket with cash several years back. Isn't America great?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Now that I am back from my weekend trip, I want to respond to your post.
To begin with, my coments were certainly not out of line considering what any reasonable thinking adult would surmise from reading your post.
It is doubtful anyone reading your post would take it as soley a love for the country.
Tha bashing of the president in most of your post say a lot more about you than the fact you love America.
We all love this country, but you don't see any of us continually downgrading ther leader of this country as you have.
What else would you expect from those who read your constant babbling on this issue?
Now, as for "not knowing you", you are correct to a point.
I have never met you personally, and to judge your character, I only have what you post too use a a yardstick in measuring your character.
What I see is what I said.
I call them as I see them, and if that offends you, then perhaps you should consider putting the brakes on you constant rehtoric regarding the president.
Had you made one or two post, and moved on, perhaps this would not have escallated to the point of any one being offended.
The fact that you are "a self made man", and in business for yourself does not elevate you too any special consideration, even if throughout your business life you have managed to hire the downtroden.
That is commendable, good for you.
I too have been self employed for the majority of my life so, your coment about me "sucking from the teat of his socialist regeime" is ridiculous.
It doesn't even warrant my attention.
Any way, I am not looking to be involved in a pissing match with you or any one else in an online forum.
I think my point is well taken , that being, your post about this birth certificate issue has gone far beyond just love of country.
Were it just that, one or two post would have been sufficient to get your point across.
You would do well to go back and read your past post, going back to the early days of the campaign.
Perhaps then you could gain a better insight as to what prompted me to speak as I did.
Bob.

 

[MonsterMark]

You would do well to go back and read your past post, going back to the early days of the campaign.

I've been consistent from day one on Obama. I smelled the turd the first day he arrived on the national scene. It was his speech at the 04 convention that garnered my attention and put me on the quest to stop this race-baiting communist.

I have so much to share about this guy but it won't happen here. This place is full of mind-numbed robots who can't think for themselves.

I see evil in Obama's eyes. Have from the very first day.

Not to change the subject, but do you think Obama has any intentions on forcing the Country into a single-payer system?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think that is his intention, but if we look at history, his plan will fail, just as all those in the past.
Nationalized health care has been debated since Rosevelt, and there is no reason to belive the outcome won't be the same.
No sane person in this country is going to cripple future generations with trillions and trillions of dollars because the present generation thinks it is the thing to do.
It didn't happen in Rosevelt's time,or Clinton's (even though Hillary was a staunch supporter and agressively campaigned for nationalized health care) and it is doubtful, using history as an example, that much, if anything will be done in the Obama administration.
If I were in a position to brief anyone on what should be done in this country, my actions and words would be directed at the republican party.
My words would be short, and too the point, that being, "It is high time you stupid bastards get off you butt and get this country, and government back on the right track".
"Start in the state houses and put up outstanding candidates for congress."
"Put forth ideas and candidates the people can trust and belive in."
"Work for the people and the nation, not the lobbyiest that want to line your pockets".
The health of the nation is at stake in these trying times, and it is going to take a solid hand at the helm to move us forward.
I belive Obama will be a one term president, and his health plan for the nation will never see the light of day, just as history has shown us.
Bob.

 

[MonsterMark]

I hope you are right Bob, but I don't think you are.

YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

We have Republicans like Arlen Specter in office now so I think the dynamic has changed. This time they are going to get it.

YouTube - Crowd Explodes When Arlen Specter Urges That We "Do This Fast"

With people like Specter supporting it, there can only be one outcome.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Specter is doing what all the congressional members should be doing in their recess from the halls of congress.
He is going to the people.
He is hearing their concerns first hand.
Enough of those concerns, especially if they are opposite of what he feels presently, could put the health plan proposal in a whole different light.
Now, multiply that by those other members of congress who are going home to listen to the people.
I honestly feel this health plan(just like the immigration reform bill) is headed for defeat.
Strangely enough, we have not heard a peep about immigration reform from the Obama administration.
Why is that?
My guess would be, it is not an issue the administration feels it would have the controlling hand when it comes to regulating the people.
What they fail too see is the amounts of money spent by the states (especially California) on health care, education and housing for the illegal population.
The administration is more concerned with a take over of indivuality of it's citizens.
That is a dangerous sanario, and the public needs to be more involved in what our voted represenatives in Washington are doing.
These town hall meetings are a step in the right direction.
Bob.

 

[fossten]

I hope you are right Bob, but I don't think you are.

YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

We have Republicans like Arlen Specter in office now so I think the dynamic has changed. This time they are going to get it.

YouTube - Crowd Explodes When Arlen Specter Urges That We "Do This Fast"

With people like Specter supporting it, there can only be one outcome.

FYI Specter is no longer a Republican. He barely ever was.