*
Politically Incorrect
Carl McClanahan

Obama's Citizenship?

Posted Friday, October 10, 2008, at 10:37 AM
Comments
View 170 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Carl,

    This suit was filed back in August actually and one of the other interesting things about Berg is his stated belief that he should be also suing the national news media for not properly investigating and reporting on Obama like they have Palin.

    Even more interesting is Berg is a Democrat.

    There may be more reasons than you know for the lack of allegiance shown by Obama.

    I thought you of all people had read the court filings by Berg months ago.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 11:11 AM
  • How dare you Carl!!!To check the facts is to insinuate that you may have doubts about his lordship, Obama. You are only allowed to check facts or report them about others, not the messiah. You will undoubtedly be labled a racist. I believe that he probably is a citizen, but like you I dont understand why this isnt all over the news. I am totally shocked that his terrorist associations came out.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 11:20 AM
  • Obama is the root to many unanswered questions as far as I'm concerned. (He doesn't even know how many states there are, which I wrote about awhile ago and probably many of you seen the video too.) But he's also connected with an organization that is well known for falsifying voter documents. It has been told on several radio broadcasts that he has paid many people to do his dirty deed. It was told that he has dead people, pets and people who aren't American citizens voting for him. Also, along with people voting multiple times and some as many as 15 times. I was listening to 99.7 yesterday and was "NOT" shocked to hear all of this about him. How many news reports have you seen or heard about Biden.....I haven't heard any. Why aren't you hearing any reports about him instead of Palin? It is no surprise who the media is rooting for......America needs to wake up!

    -- Posted by jkelley on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 11:48 AM
  • With the family ties, extended travel to nations with strong terrorist influence, the reversion to his original name Barrack after his return from a Muslim nation, and several slips about his Muslim faith and the 57 states, any other person would be seriously investigated.

    I truly am amazed that these things are not discussed for whatever reason. We are talking about an extremest group that has no hesitation to martyr themselves for the cause and this man will have access to THE BUTTON!

    The fact that it is NOT being discussed makes me uneasy. Regardless of all the promises from both sides, it is a matter of trust for me.

    I do not question Mr. McCain's good intentions for the nation, even though I do not agree with some of his policies or plans.

    There are too many unanswered questions and too much commotion about even asking the question. Therefore I can not get a comfortable feeling about Mr. Obama.

    If we are wrong one way, one man does not become President. If we are wrong the other way, we could suffer much worse.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 11:56 AM
  • My wife and I had a heated discussion last night, concerning the election. She knows and understands why I will not vote for McCain nor Obama, and the reasons why I am voting for Chuck Baldwin. She brought to my attention that a vote for Baldwin may very well be a vote for Obama. An Obama dictatorship scares me to my very soul, but a McCain presidency would certainly mean more increase in the size and power of govt. I am at a lost, but I have a real fear of Obama, especially the hypnotic hold he has over his followers and a large portion of the media. You can no longer call them supporters they can only be labled as followers. Why are these warnings being ignored?

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 12:23 PM
  • John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, Panama in 1936. There is some concern that he is not a "natural born citizen" and could not be president since he was born outside the 50 states; or 48 at the time of his birth.

    -- Posted by Grit on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 12:25 PM
  • As I understand it, there is no real concern about McCain except as a retort to Obama's citizenship. I believe he was born on a U.S. base and both of his parents were citizens.

    Mr Obama was born on foreign soil and only one of his parents were citizens and there is some question about her status since she did not live in the U.S. long enough as an adult.

    A bigger concern to me is where Mr. Obama's TRUE allegiance lies and who is backing him for what reasons.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 12:31 PM
  • greasemonkey, the fact that it IS being ignored worries me. I am not big on conspiracy theories, but......

    I believe your wife might have a strong point for voting for McCain. He was not and is not my preferred choice, but Mr. Obama has become a big concern to me so his defeat is more important.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 12:36 PM
  • Steve,

    Yes, I understand her point on voting for McCain, (although she is mainly voting for Palin) but I dont think I can do it. He rarely lines up with my beliefs, and I dont believe he will do whats good for this country except on defense which is important, but on most other issues hes to liberal for me. I may just stay home....

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 12:49 PM
  • McCain situation is different because he was born to two American citizens who were on a United States military base and he was born in a military hospital which is considered United States soil. Plus, a law was passed in 1937, a year AFTER he was born, stating that anyone born after 1930 to two American citizen parents would be considered natural born regardless of where they were born.

    Obama's case was nothing like the above.

    -- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:03 PM
  • BTW . . . I am actually thinking about writing Ron Paul's name in when I go to vote

    -- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:04 PM
  • Dear Mr. Grit:

    Your concern about Senator McCain being a "natural born citizen" of the United States is brought about either by your failure to read or, your ability to understand the language of law and the United States Constitution.

    Dear Mr. McClanahan:

    After having just read in its' entirety, Civil Action No: 08-cv-04083, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed by Phillip J. Berg, Esg., Plantiff vs Barack Hussein Obama, Et Al, Defendants, it seems evident that:

    a) with Plantiff filings as late as yesterday, October 09, 2008, it will be surprising to see it blown away by the winds of the left;

    b) these are serious charges and, for Senator Obama to retain a semblance of credibility, he must respond; and,

    c) what a shame that our national media has ample time to emit political opinion after opinion but, can't find a few seconds of air time and effort to either substaniate or refute such a level of accusation.

    Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Mr. McClanahan and, please keep us posted!

    -- Posted by garhawk on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:06 PM
  • What has Obama got to hide? The simple act of coming forth and presenting a TRUE RECORD OF BIRTH?

    We as everyday citizens when proceeding to fill out paper work for applying for a job - most employers ask for a LEGAL DOCUMENT OF BIRTH.

    Again I ask....

    Obama - WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE?

    -- Posted by OldGaDawg on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:17 PM
  • Regarding his mother (possibly) losing her citizenship by marrying, and then declaring that Obama was an Indonesian citizen, the relevant law makes it clear that she can't unilaterally revoke his citizenship. The following law, in effect in the 60's, trumps any Indonesian law (I would hope) covering American Citizenship:

    "A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States."

    That's the law as it was in the early 60's:

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/1952_Immigration_and_Nationality...

    The law as it is now: http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb816838a... .

    Note the last provision: it's up to the accuser to prove, with a preponderance of evidence, that someone is not a natural citizen. You don't think he's a citizen, you have to prove it, not the other way around.

    So, since no one disputes that Obama made the US his permanent residence well before (something like 15 years, I think) his 25th birthday it makes no difference what his parents/step parent did in Indonesia.

    On the point of his birthplace, as best I can tell only the lunatic fringe is still holding that he was born in Canada or Kenya or some such.

    -- Posted by nickrud on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:22 PM
  • It is ALLEGED (but far from proven) that "Mr Obama was born on foreign soil and only one of his parents were citizens and there is some question about her status since she did not live in the U.S. long enough as an adult."

    In fact, the documentary evidence indicates that he was, actually, born in Honolulu, Hawaii. (The documentary evidence includes the COLB, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health, the contempraneous report from the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics, reported in two newspapers within a week of his birth, his current US Passport (which he could not get without proper documentation), and his drivers license (which he couldn't get without proper documentation).

    There may be a reason that this is "being ignored" by the media. Do you recall the MSM reporting on a lawsuit alleging that Bush and Cheney conspired to cause 9/11? (That was Berg, the lawyer in this case.) Do you recall the MSM reporting on attempts to disbar the Supreme Court for their ruling in Gore v. Bush? (That was Berg, the lawyer in this case.)

    For those who have made up their mind on this issue, the following will not be helpful. For those who are interested in looking into the allegations - and the facts supporting those allegations, visit http://www.whatsyourevidence.com.

    -- Posted by WYE on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:31 PM
  • I think it's funny that people always want to start up the fear mongering of "Obama is a Muslum..etc..etc", but how come no one is talking about the Palin's link to Alaskan Independence Party? What about the Alaskan Independence Party's link to Iran???

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/

    "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government, and I won't be buried under their **** flag" Vogler - Joe Vogler (AIP Founder)

    -- Posted by GoTitans on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:38 PM
  • i will, of course, be voting libertarian as usual,

    fully aware that it is a pointless symbolic act.

    i just wonder if ya'll have any idea how whacky this all sounds?

    have you ever considered that coming across like raving lunatics might do more harm than good for your candidate?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:39 PM
  • At best, his citizenship is a little muddy but that is not what concerns me most.

    It is his associations, his extended trip to a Muslim nation, why he changed his name AFTER that trip, his mental slip of referring to 57 states (which is a Muslim belief) and his other slip of referring to his Muslim faith.

    I am not against the Muslim religion, but I do take issue with the extremists that attacked the U.S. Many a college student has been converted to the fanatical side and his actions all seem to fit the mold. It is an uneasiness that I can not put aside.

    I understand voting your conscience but when a vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning helps put a potential security risk in the White House, I think it is time to rethink the vote.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:54 PM
  • Speaking of fanatical...have you heard some of the stuff that's comming out of the people attending McCain/Palin tour stops lately? I can't repeat any of it here, but if your curious it's all over the web. Talk about some scary stuff....

    -- Posted by GoTitans on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 1:59 PM
  • Let's see if the McCain campaign brings this thing up.

    -- Posted by Grit on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 2:15 PM
  • well, well, it sounds like Carl may need some more handkerchiefs to cry into to....this is old news that has gone through the media a good time ago!

    -- Posted by reader_2 on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 2:29 PM
  • I have checked the latest reporting on the Justia.com, and they do not show that the Judge has signed the order for Obama to produce the vault copy of his birth certificate, ect. Berg filed a motion to do so, but the Judge has not made a ruling.

    Considering the ruling Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen, the case in California, where John McCain's citizenship was challenged, I doubt that the courts are going to take up the issue. In the California case, the court said that this would have be an issue taken up when Congress counts the votes from the Electoral College Election on 1/6/2009. A challenge would have to b filed under 3 U.S.C. section 5, i.e. the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

    With the Democrats in control of Congress, well we all know who they would support.

    -- Posted by luvdatbobcat on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 3:43 PM
  • reality check, steve.

    neither my vote nor yours will affect the outcome of the election.

    mccain will carry tennessee and receive its electoral votes regardless of how you and i vote.

    and i suppose i have my answer to the question of whether you think crazy talk will help... or more likely harm... your candidate.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 3:58 PM
  • liberals like reader_2 and others just simply don't get it. this is not the guy we need leading our country during these times. he's all over the map and has done whatever it has taken to work his way up in the political world. that is obvious. who knows what he will do if elected? at least we have a record on mccain, although many of us disagree with him on some issues. obama has done nothing in his career and is not prepared to be commander-in-chief. i don't know whether he is dangerous or not, but i'd rather not take the risk.

    -- Posted by DoubleJ on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 4:20 PM
  • NY election mix-up: 'Osama' on the ballot

    TROY, N.Y. - Who is running for president? In an upstate New York county, hundreds of voters have been sent absentee ballots in which they could vote for "Barack Osama."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/osama_ballot

    You Gotta Love NY :>)

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 4:50 PM
  • Does Obama have a Passport? Wouldn't he have to prove citizenship before obtaining one? or does a Senator with a private plane sidestep such trivial matters when they go to preach before the VandenBerg gates?

    -- Posted by No-bo on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 5:19 PM
  • Does Obama have a Passport? Wouldn't he have to prove citizenship before obtaining one? or does a Senator with a private plane sidestep such trivial matters when they go to preach before the VandenBerg gates?

    -- Posted by No-bo on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 5:20 PM
  • This has been answered... The birth certificate has been submitted and that is why the media is ignoring it.. Because they have ALREADY covered this story (a year ago) and found that Obama was and is in fact a U.S. citizen... born in Hawaii.

    -- Posted by nascarfanatic on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 5:49 PM
  • Mr. McClanahan stated "His father's family all verify this version (Barack Obama was born in Kenya) and in Mombassa, Kenya there is registered the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. on a date approximating when our Obama was born." This is important and there is only one way to satisfy this, and that is for the Times Gazette to reach the high standards of journalism, and send Mr. McClanahan to Kenya and interview Barack Obama's father's family. Let's find out for sure.

    -- Posted by Grit on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 8:29 PM
  • Interesting.. Palin acted "unlawfully", which we all knew. That is one of the things that sucks about living in a small town, taking your vengance out in a political way sometimes backfires.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/palin_troopergate

    Grit,

    GREAT suggestion! Though, that would NEVER happen.

    -- Posted by Vindicated on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 8:55 PM
  • Vindicated,

    I belive the T-G can get a ticket for about $2000 into Nairobi, Kenya, from Nashville, this is through Dubai. Visa may be a problem, will take some time, may need some shots. Dubai does not require a visa for transit. However, if I was in Dubai I would want to go out and look at the place. One problem - where do Senator Obama's folks live? I am reading that they are out in Western Kenya, close to Lake Victoria, but Mombasa is on the coast. I would hate that Mr. McClanahan could not find them. Remember, this is important.

    -- Posted by Grit on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 9:44 PM
  • MY name is on my comments and I do not back off my concerns because someone wants to call names. If Mr. Obama wins the election, I PRAY my concerns WERE crazy. I do not want to be right.

    I believe most of us will agree that believing a politician takes a whole lot of faith or naivety. What I am judging is actions and history. I have no idea what McCain will actually do if he wins. Nor do I know what any President can do with our present Congress, but his past is not muddy when it comes to his love of our country. I trust that.

    Mr. Obama's past and even some of his own statements both past and in the last few months, give me reason to wonder about his patriotism and honesty. That is one concern I do not want to have.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 10:32 PM
  • This is old news. Obama was born in Hawaii. I'm sure he would not have gotten this far if his citizenship were in question. It all boils down to the fact that the right wing neocons have nothing to hang their hats on in terms of success over the last 8 years, so they attack their opponents with anything they can dredge up. This is nothing other than 'swiftboating" at its worst. By the way is McCain's campaign still suspended?

    -- Posted by volfanatic on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 11:18 PM
  • http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    This is a link to a reputable, unbiased website. I really wish that people would take the time to take a look at it before passing along mistruths.

    If you bother to read it, you'll see that both sides have stretched the truth and even told outright lies. After all, they're all politicians. That's what they do best.

    -- Posted by Nobody'sFool on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 11:42 PM
  • This is old news. Obama was born in Hawaii. I'm sure he would not have gotten this far if his citizenship were in question. It all boils down to the fact that the right wing neocons have nothing to hang their hats on in terms of success over the last 8 years, so they attack their opponents with anything they can dredge up. This is nothing other than 'swiftboating" at its worst. By the way is McCain's campaign still suspended?

    -- Posted by volfanatic on Fri, Oct 10, 2008, at 11:18 PM

    You summed it up... I wish McCain could give us 10 things that have been an improvement over the last 8 years, that he could talk about. Run on your "record" is all we ever hear from his mouth... Well, why don't we ever hear ANYTHING pertaining to the last 8 years that he has been involved in? I mean, really.

    It's much easier to launch BLATANT attacks on your opponent (who is beginning to run away with this election)... And you send out, SARAH PALIN- whose husband WANTED ALASKA TO SECEDE FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Why in the hell does that not EVER come out of these "Conservative" pundits mouths, talk show hosts or fellow bloggers? It is an attempt to divert our attention from Wall Street's WORST week in history, the faltering "McPAIN" campaign and 8 years of absolute NOTHING.

    -- Posted by Vindicated on Sat, Oct 11, 2008, at 6:25 AM
  • Reply to volfanatic:

    "It all boils down to the fact that the right wing neocons....."

    This is NOT a suit brought by the McCain, or the Republicans, this is a suit brought solely by a life time and prominent member of the Democrat party.

    If Berg is correct, and if Obama would have enough electors to win the Electoral College Election, this could put the Democrats in Congress in a very bad position.

    Do they uphold the US Constitution and risk a revolt from members of their own party? Or do they allow someone who is qualified to take office and risk the repercussions of the 2010 mid-term elections?

    From Berg (Plaintiff) v. Obama (Defendant):

    "Plaintiff is a life long Democrat who had always been proud of his Party. Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in good standing and has taken an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Plaintiff has donated money and billable hours to Democratic Presidential candidates as well as to the Democratic National Committee. Plaintiff has relied on the DNC's promises to uphold our Constitution, which includes properly vetting our Presidential Nominee and ensuring our Party's Nominee is eligible to serve as President of the United States pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of our United States Constitution."

    -- Posted by luvdatbobcat on Sat, Oct 11, 2008, at 7:59 AM
  • hi steve,

    i apologize for the misunderstanding.

    i did not intend to call you crazy, i have known you for quite some time, and consider you to be basically an intelligent and reasonable man.

    it was my intention to state that this sounds like "crazy talk" in a generic sense of the term.

    remember, i am a libertarian, and had a marked preference that mccain win, since i much prefer the executive and legislative branches be split between the major parties. it would seem that is pretty much a moot point now.

    consider this.

    as we have all been witness to the last couple of weeks, both candidates are engaging in wholesale truth-stretching, distortion, and outright lying.

    yet, somehow mccain has not thrown this accusation out there.

    given that truthfullness is obviously not a consideration (again, for EITHER candidate), the only reason i can think of is because it is so preposterous that making such an accusation would only serve to discredit the one who made it.

    again i pose the question as to whether this sort of accusation, which has all the credibility of alien abduction, or being in line to receive $40 million from a deposed african prince, might be doing more harm to mccain than good?

    -- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Oct 11, 2008, at 9:38 AM
  • Thanks for your many and varied comments. Just for the record, I have "heard" reports of the Africa birth over the months and assigned such reports as lacking credibility. I was not aware of the possibility he is an Indonesian citizen and not an American. Could even be an illegal alien in the US. The Pennsyvania lawsuit filed only a few weeks ago and the subsequent pleadings give some legs to the credibility of the allegation.

    As to those who say he has proved he was born in Hawaii, I can find only that he has produced a "certificate of registry of a birth." Not the same as a "certified" certificate of birth which is required by all of us a few times throughout our life. Perhaps you can steer me to a source proving I am mistaken.

    And, Nobody'sfool, I'm somewhat amazed at your statement factcheck.com is a "reputable, unbiased website," a self-serving quote from the web site. You might should, if you are really interested in being well informed, check out the genesis of the site. It is a division of and supported by the Annenberg Foundation. The same entity that gave $55 million to William Ayres' group in Chicago and Ayres hired one Barack Obama to administer the money, so it's a leap for me to accept their "findings" without supporting evidence elsewhere.

    And Reader_2, how does it feel to hide in the bushes and throw rocks at people. The actions, most would agree, of a coward and a bully. Your pithy, inane and stupid remarks add nothing to any attempts at having a meaninful discussion of the issues. When I see your "name" I am immediately reminded of the old adage, "It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Sat, Oct 11, 2008, at 12:07 PM
  • Carl:

    Who was William Ayers's group in Chicago? What is the difference between a "certificate of registry of birth" and a certified birth certificate, and does Hawaii only issue certificates of registry of birth? Barack Obama's birth certificate that is posted on the Internet is called a "certification of live birth"; this is the one from Hawaii. Is this not a certified birth certificate and if not, why?

    -- Posted by Grit on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 1:45 AM
  • and i used to think that Mr Mills and Mr Mcclanahan were intelligent folks. I know that you guys know better than this, why don't you just come out and say that you will not vote for a black man to be president of the United States, because all of this talk about him STILL BEING Muslim,questions about his patriotism, his allegiance to America is nothing more than Bull#$#. The scary thing to me is if Mccain were to win the presidency and die this lady that i have never heard of in my life would be president of the United States..../now thats scary!!!

    -- Posted by slingshot on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 5:12 AM
  • cmcclanahan, (I'm mostly copying something I posted earlier, you may have missed it)

    Regarding his mother (possibly) losing her citizenship by marrying, and then declaring that Obama was an Indonesian citizen, the relevant law makes it clear that she can't unilaterally revoke his citizenship. The following law, in effect in the 60's, trumps any Indonesian law covering American Citizenship (I would hope, although Berg claims otherwise) :

    "A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States."

    That's the law as it was in the early 60's:

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/1952_Immigration_and_Nationality...

    The law as it is now:

    http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9fef57852dc066cfe16a4cb816838a...

    Since no one disputes that Obama returned to the US before his 23d birthday, this nothing more than an annoyance suit by someone who filed suit against Bush for plotting 9/11.

    http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint.htm

    (Fresh content follows ;)

    And regarding the funding of factcheck (and the group that both Ayers and Obama sat on) by the Annenberg Foundation, it was founded by a Republican who was the Ambassador to England under Nixon. It's current President has endorsed John McCain. Not exactly a 'Left Wing Radical' group.

    http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/about/about_show.htm?doc_id=210599

    http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/biographies/biographies_show.htm?doc_id=67008...

    http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=6e1f37e2-ece5-43bb-b901-b2...

    Now, if you choose to vote for McCain, there's nothing wrong with that, just do it for thoughful reasons, not because of lies on the internet.

    -- Posted by nickrud on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 9:08 AM
  • I don't care that he's black but I do care that he may be a muslim and they believe their Massiah won't come back until there is complete and utter discord and chaos, what better way to bring down the great and power United States then from with its own government.

    -- Posted by bellbuckletn on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 9:44 AM
  • Preacherwife,

    EDUCATE yourself... then fear will fall by the wayside. He is NOT a Muslim... and guess what, even if he were, there is no religious test to become president. LOOK at his wife and children, if that doesn't settle the issue, I don't know what will..

    ____________________________________________

    And regarding the funding of factcheck (and the group that both Ayers and Obama sat on) by the Annenberg Foundation, it was founded by a Republican who was the Ambassador to England under Nixon. It's current President has endorsed John McCain. Not exactly a 'Left Wing Radical' group.

    http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/about...

    http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/biogr...

    http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/R...

    Now, if you choose to vote for McCain, there's nothing wrong with that, just do it for thoughful reasons, not because of lies on the internet.

    -- Posted by nickrud on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 9:08 AM

    WOW, Nice little fact check.. I wonder how a dose of truth settles? Probably hard to swallow around here.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 9:57 AM
  • I could care less which one that any of you vote for ..what I truly don't understand is "why is it ok to believe gossip or internet lies about Palin but not about Obama?"

    As far as not ever hearing of Palin before she was selected for VP spot, you are right nobody had ever heard of her but then again who'd ever really heard of Obama before he started running either unless of course you are from IL.

    I am not supporting McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden the way I have it figured if that's the best our country can come up with, we are in worse shape than I thought

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 10:00 AM
  • -- Posted by nickrud on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 1:11 PM
  • And Dianatn, you are absolutely correct about the things said about Palin on the internet. Fact check them yourself, or visit one of the fact checking sites for correct information. You might start with the report released by the Alaska Legislature Council, composed of 10 republicans and 4 Democrats.

    (Only 12 voted, so at least 8 republicans, or 4/5ths of the republicans on the council, voted for it's release). http://download1.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf

    -- Posted by nickrud on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 1:32 PM
  • Some of you need to wake up and realize that Barack Obama is just a man. The right is attempting to demonize him using idiotic logic and skewed facts. If you can not look at Barack Obama and tell by the way that he interacts with his wife and daughters and see that he is obviously a kind and decent man then you are FOOL! If you can not see that he is highly educated and respected by his peers and colleagues then you are FOOL! And if you think that Barack Obama has no respect for the United States Constitution having been a professor Constitutional Law for 12 years you are a FOOL! I have read many of the comments on this blog post and I wonder what logic you use to come up with such nonsense. You know as much about John McCain as you do Barack Obama, very little. And please stop believing everything that comes out of Sean Hannity or Phil Valentine's mouth. It is usually only half of the truth and snipped from its original context. They have an agenda and they are not fair and balanced.

    -- Posted by nathan.evans on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 1:36 PM
  • Carl, I've wondered, too, why the mainstream media assiduously ignores this lawsuit. I guess they're waiting for the National Enquirer to break the news.

    One important correction, though. Obama has NOT been ordered by the court to produce anything.

    The "Order" you quoted from was a PROPOSED order. A proposed order is not the same thing as an Order. A lot of people have read the court filings and been confused by the PROPOSED order.

    Most court jurisdictions require a party to file a proposed order with any motion or document that requests the court to do anything. The proposed order, then, is just the setting-out of what the attorney wants the court to do. The opposite side will also have their proposed order setting out what they're asking the judge to do. It saves the court staff a lot time and effort if there is already a document ready to sign. Often there will also be a line for the opposing attorney to sign their agreement "as to form only," which reduces any kind of quibbling or misunderstanding later.

    Unless and until that proposed order gets signed by the judge, it is no more than a piece of paper that the attorney hopes the judge will sign. Just wishful thinking in writing.

    Judge Surrick has not signed the proposed order requiring production of any documents or anything else.

    The only order that has been signed in this case is the initial order denying injunctive relief. That order was entered after the attorney, Philip Berg, filed his motion for injunctive and declaratory relief, which would have effectively halted Obama's campaign.

    The lawsuit faces a lot of legal hurdles.

    But I absolutely agree with you that the mainstream media should be covering this. The filing of the suit is an undisputed fact and it seems to me that the American public is more than entitled to know about it.

    -- Posted by RLamb on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 1:55 PM
  • >>>And please stop believing everything that comes out of Sean Hannity or Phil Valentine's mouth. It is usually only half of the truth and snipped from its original context. They have an agenda and they are not fair and balanced.

    I'd say we might all be better off, not believing anything we read and only half of what we see.

    And if you believe anything that comes out of ANY politician's mouth, then you are a FOOL!

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 2:51 PM
  • Just as a matter of explaination. I tried very hard in this piece to state I didn't believe all the allegation. I tried equally hard to state they were only allegations. I tried hard not to take a position on the truthfulness or lack there of re the allegations. It is well know here I do not support Obama nor am I a fan of the national mainstream media and I make no apology for eithe position.

    I wrote the piece not as an anti-Obama piece, but a condemnation of the biases of the nation media. I don't think the people realize the dangers that could befall us with a biased media which feeds us only information that supports their own agenda.

    I wrote the piece to condemn the media for their silence. I wrote to state the allegations are serious enough the American people at large should be informed so they can weigh the veracity of the charges and make up their own minds.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 4:20 PM
  • Carl,

    The media is not giving legs to this story because it is something DEMOCRATS tried to do 20 months ago when he began his campaign, Democrats who tried to beat him, and couldn't...

    The media is not covering it because they understand it has been covered, and he is a legitimate and responsible U.S. citizen.

    The media, as far right or in left field as many are, have always garnered scrutiny for everything... I scorned the media when they never questioned the "War on Terrorism", I scorned the media when they glorified 9/11.

    How on this earth do you suppose a man has campaigned for president across this entire country for nearly 2 years, without knowing whether or not he was even eligible to do so? You have got to be kidding me that this blog and others are merely questions of his citizenship. There are people coming out of the woodworks to show their true colors, and it is highly unfortunate that this time internal conflicts are portrayed through words like 'Muslim', 'Terrorist', etc etc etc... because of some fear that a man who IS different than all 43 presidents before him, is going to single handedly destroy America.

    Where is the blog about why we SHOULD vote for McCain rather than all this conjured up crap about why you think we shouldn't vote for Obama? NONE of which has a single iota of truth, and none of which is anything more than unfounded fear.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 4:49 PM
  • And if you believe anything that comes out of ANY politician's mouth, then you are a FOOL!

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 2:51 PM

    Diana, I don't think the reader you referenced said a thing about believing what a politician has or hasn't said...

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 4:51 PM
  • Darrick....thanks for the commentary. I just think the American people are capable of hearing about the allegation and then sorting them out themselves. I realize, as I have said, the "African birth" scenario has been out there for a long time, but I don't think most folks are aware of the Indonesian connection as it relates to citizenship.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 5:13 PM
  • I see your point.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 5:34 PM
  • Diana, I don't think the reader you referenced said a thing about believing what a politician has or hasn't said...

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 4:51 PM

    Never said he did

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 5:56 PM
  • I believe the mainstream media is, as a whole centrist, but continually dressing to the right. Some are far right, but none and I repeat none of the mainstream media are far left or promote any populist agendas. They are in a tough position. They need to appeal to a broad target audience which is usually moderate, but at the same time, also appeal to the advertisers who are as a rule somewhat right of center, and finally even attempt to promote the editorial/ownership/board aspect. Most journalists are re-reporters of the news at this point anyway. We need to support more truly independent investigative reporters on the national level that have not sold out to being "in the circle".

    I agree with you Dianatn. We cannot trust them to provide an accurate representation. In defense of the journalists though, they face an uphill battle getting any real information that isn't spoon fed to them. I believe the federal government (both parties) utilize the ability to classify and hide information in ways that were never intended. We, as a nation of people, can not judge the merits of anything that we know little or nothing about. We are a group that has only a partial history of our government's actions. Without a fairly complete and accurate history, we are not in a position to form a vision for our future. Maybe that is why we get so excited when we are given a choice between 2 virtually identical candidates, and get so worked up over minor issues that dominate the news coverage. The media does have its share of problems from within and without, but they currently do far more to cloud the issues at hand, than to inform the public, at least in my opinion. I think the bigger question would be: What are the factors contributing to this situation?

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 10:07 PM
  • FACTCHECK.ORG HAS LIBERAL BACKING...SO IT IS BIASED IN IT'S 'FACT' CHECKING. HARD TO TRUST ANYTHING OR ANYONE ANYMORE...

    -- Posted by kvalle1 on Sun, Oct 12, 2008, at 11:29 PM
  • Carl, Carl, Carl....you don't know me, I don't want to know you and I have never personally attacked you.

    But after this statement, you have personally attacked me...

    "And Reader_2, how does it feel to hide in the bushes and throw rocks at people. The actions, most would agree, of a coward and a bully. Your pithy, inane and stupid remarks add nothing to any attempts at having a meaninful discussion of the issues. When I see your "name" I am immediately reminded of the old adage, "It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

    Talk about throwing stones...here's one back at you..ha,ha

    GET A LIFE...old man!

    -- Posted by reader_2 on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 8:23 AM
  • Carl McClanahan-

    John McCain called Obama a citizen of this great country, and also a family man. Finally I agree with McCain!

    -- Posted by AFlynn on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 10:11 AM
  • i completely concur Nathan Evans, lies, lies, and more lies about Obama....who are they trying to fool....themselves i guess.

    -- Posted by slingshot on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 11:04 AM
  • i must say Mr Mcclanahan it is quite obvious that you can't handle a Black Man being President of the United States. You have got to do your part in spreading false allegations and down right lies sir....but guess what its coming!!!!!

    -- Posted by slingshot on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 11:09 AM
  • OMG, just because someone doesnt want to vote for Obama does not mean they are a racist. He is unfit to lead this country regardless if he was purple with yellow dots. His race does not bother me in the least, its his socialist policies that bother me.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 11:24 AM
  • ummmmmmm. Slingshot.....is false allegations an oxymorom???? Interesting you know with certainty, I believe that is within the definition of obvious, that I am a racist. No one who knows we would ever say that and no one in these blogs has, so you have discovered due to your superior intellect an absolute no one in the world has discovered. Congratulations on your creative powers and power to gain information by osmosis.

    -- Posted by cmcclanahan on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 11:50 AM
  • why the lies, lies and more lies, i could care less if you did or didn't vote for Obama but to try to smear him the way you have done is total crap!! I didn't say you were a racist there will be millions of people that wont vote for Obama but most of them are not fabricating the crap that you are.Its less than 3 weeks before the election and your questioning his citizenship, his allegiance to this country, talking about him being a muslim. I think you need to keep your ignorant thoughts to yourself. I just thank God that most of us aren't as ignorant as you seem to be.

    -- Posted by slingshot on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 4:30 PM
  • I think it's funny how the only comeback that Obama supporters have against MeCain is, "Bush this, and Bush that" You really don't want to go there, need I remind all of you that it was your very own William Jefferson Clinton that almost got impeached for what he DID do in the White House while he was president. Thus, like expected Obama followers praise this sorry excuse for a FORMER president. As a real wolf in sheeps clothing, keep following Obama until he leads you to you demise. A quick question, Why doesn't Obama answer all of the different affiliation with terrorists questions ? Ask yourself that. You reap what you sew. It's ok Nov, 4th it will be too late to turn back then, all of you will be responsible for putting a socialist in control.

    -- Posted by SteelerT on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 5:26 PM
  • I think it's funny how the only comeback that Obama supporters have against MeCain is, "Bush this, and Bush that"

    -- Posted by SteelerT on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 5:26 PM

    It is equally ironic that those who bash Obama give us one reason to vote for McCain...

    And you want to imply that somehow he will be a "socialist" president, how would that be any different than McCain's suggestion to buy up $300 billion worth of bad loans from not only the banks, but homeowners as well?

    McCain's plans, being judged and analyzed by multiple independent analysts, will nearly triple the expenditures that Obama proposes...

    It is easy to think Republicans aren't any more likely to be socialists since they have yet to pay back ANYTHING they've borrowed, they tend to leave the cleaning up for a Democrat, who gets called socialist because he has to raise taxes or cut welfare rolls to pay for the reckless spending of prior adminisitrations.

    How will McCain be any different? Besides the fact that he is even richer and has an even more ridiculous temper?

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 6:46 PM
  • WOW ! why am i not suprised, that once again, it goes back to the Bush administration and how they handled their term. You want reality ? Using the Democratic philosophy ? Bush took over after Clinton had closed military bases & left OUR country voulnerable to outside attacks. I know this may suprise the Obama lovers but the 9/11 Terrorists had been training for a year or more in our country under Clintons rules & it was Clintons government that didn't even know where these illegals on expired visas were. Now how does that sound ? That is the facts ! Just like it is a fact that Obama has affiliations with terrorists & terrorists organizations. Look at it on this side. If McCain wins he will be in there 4 years and thats it, if Obama wins it could affect our country for years to come. Make him answer questions NOW, don't wait until he won't have to answer for what hes done.____ It isn't just about the economy, its about morals. Obama has proven by not answering the million dollar question, he will continue to make bad decisions later. Look this up, Obama tried to pass a law in Chicago to teach 1st graders sex education in the school system, thats who you want for YOUR president. This is OUR country not YOURS !!

    -- Posted by SteelerT on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 7:17 PM
  • Like I figured, no reason to vote for McCain.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 7:43 PM
  • And the irony of the statement that we cut military spending under Clinton and was one of the most revered countries in the world, who didn't bully our way into countries for hidden agendas.

    Now suddenly we have quadrupled the military spending and it now stretched so thin that we continue to send the same soldiers back to the same countries on repeated tours. In other words, it is a "backdoor draft". How does sending troops to a country that never once attacked us, nor once threatened OUR security, help us in any way?

    The attacks were known threats to the Bush administration, and the military response was highly inadequate, scrambling fighter jets from hundreds of miles away, rather than nearby...

    McCain is suddenly trying to distance himself from the very administration he was lockstep with for 8 years... the very same people who drove him into the ground in 2000 are now inefficiently running McCain's campaign (into the ground)... Any coincidence, I think not?

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 7:51 PM
  • And the irony of the statement that we cut military spending under Clinton and was one of the most revered countries in the world

    Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 7:51 PM

    So revered that we got chosen to be "it" on 9/11.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 8:05 PM
  • SteelerT,

    You definitely had your eyes open during the Clinton Calamity.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 8:08 PM
  • Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 7:43 PM

    And the irony of the statement that we cut military spending under Clinton and was one of the most revered countries in the world, who didn't bully our way into countries for hidden agendas.

    -------------------------------------------------

    Once again, can you please tell me something good about OBAMA without bringing up the Bush administration.

    The military works on a volunteer basis. I'm not in the military, do you know why ? -->BECAUSE I DIDN'T SIGN UP !<-- Alot of the people complaining about the military presence in other countrys are the very ones who know it all but turn their back to these same terrorists activities that Obama has been know to have connections with. Also, some of Obamas terrorist "buddies" committed these crime in OUR country & on OUR soil all across OUR land !!

    -- Posted by SteelerT on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 8:16 PM
  • Reason no. 1 to vote for McCain: You don't like Obama

    Reason no. 2 to vote for McCain: You are rich

    Reason no. 3 to vote for McCain: You don't know how to distinguish the truth, and consider those fictitious emails as legit.

    Reason no. 4 to vote for McCain: Because Palin is hot (though I disagree)

    Reason no. 5 to vote for McCain: You love oil companies

    Reason no. 6 to vote for McCain: You love large corporations who earn record profits, while we are lied to about why our prices skyrocket

    Reason no. 7 to vote for McCain: You love sending our children into foreign countries that want us to leave

    Reason no. 8 to vote for McCain: Because he is the old white guy who looks just like all 42 presidents before him, and you don't like to deviate from the status quo

    Reason no.9 to vote for McCain: You live in a large house that is now worth less than you are paying for it.

    Reason no. 10 to vote for McCain: You liked George Bush, and blame all of the current problems on Clinton, but all of the successes on the Republican Congress who was in power with Clinton

    Reason no. 11 to vote for McCain: You enjoy record budget deficits

    Reason no. 12 to vote for McCain: You enjoy skyrocketing health care costs

    Reason no. 13 to vote for McCain: You're more obsessed about Clinton's alleged extramarital affair than Bush illegally wiretapping your phone and computer

    Reason no. 14 to vote for McCain: You like to throw around the term "socialism" when Democrats want to help Americans, but when McCain proposes identical ideas it is "mavericky"

    Reason no. 15 to vote for McCain: You call yourself a Christian but your candidate cheated on his wife after she became disfigured and forgot to finalize his divorce... his kids didn't attend his second wedding.

    -- Posted by Disturbia on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 9:06 PM
  • Reasons to vote for Obama....

    1) He says he's for the American People (lie #1)

    2) He says he only was involved in fund raisers with past terrorists. (lie #2)

    3) He says he has the qualifications and his record shows it (lie #3)

    4) He says he has the answers to healthcare (lie#5)

    5) He is for welfare reform, or helping the people on welfare stay there since they won't get a job.

    6) He has already gone to foreign countrys that are known to not have the USA in their best interest.

    7) He has Joe Biden as a VP canidate, who has admitted he was against the things Obama was for before he was chosen for the position.

    Also on top of the FACTS i have listed, look at Obamas voted present that doesn't mean you voted for something, even way back when i was in school, it means you are there not you vote for something.

    In case no one has told you Democrats. Our children don't go to war, unless they sign up to do so. This might suprise you but thats how it works.

    It's funny how Obama has said nothing about illegal immigration, you think it might be because they buy into his falsehood, just like you ? More votes for Obama it just means the destruction of OUR country as we know it. They don't think they need Insurance, license or anything we citizens have. Therefore, we pay for them when were in an accident with them & they have no insurance & that goes for health ins too. You can thank Phil Bredesen for that getting so bad in our state too. Another Democrat turning a blind eye to our problems.

    Thats just like your other hero Al Gore, who says he is all for energy saving & the new "green" theory. --- BREAKING NEWS --- AL GORE has a house in Tennessee and uses more energy than 99% of the homes in Tennessee. Sound just like the false promises that Obama has promised & doesn't have a clue how to make those come true.

    -- Posted by SteelerT on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 9:57 PM
  • I think some of us have an unreasonable fear of terrorists and activists. We are apparently living in an unfounded atmosphere of tension and fear that has been cultivated since the end of the cold war. We should not view activism as equating to anti-American sentiment. That is an egregious contradiction in terms. We are a society born of and shaped by activism. Either candidate elected will have ties to terrorists. Depending on the respective administrations chosen, I fear McCain will have far more ties to terrorism than Obama, but both will certainly have them. It is a safe bet that either party will in fact be actively creating new terrorists. The majority of the terrorism operating in the last several decades were originally (perhaps throughout) our guys anyway, either directly or economically. Bin Laden, Hussein, Castro, Somoza, and later the Contras, Noriega, The Saudi Royal Family, Musharraf, Ngo Dinh Diem and Ho Chi Minh make up only a partial list of people that have enjoyed the benefits and rewards of relations with the US. The country we live in dominates the world, not only through the military, but also in economic terms. I think it would be a mistake to attempt to characterize ourselves as helpless victims held against the powers of these people/organizations with no recourse or responsibility for helping to produce such groups in the name of national interests, which will without fail, ultimately translate to the interests of a certain class of people in this nation.

    I personally do not care where either candidate was born, the fate of their first marriage, their ties to activists or terrorists, either civilian leftists or previous right wing administrations or the color of their skin. I am however worried about things like the destruction of our currency to further concentrate power, the globalist agenda, the militarization of our own country, the ease in which hard earned rights, which were never given freely, but were fought for, are being stripped away right under our noses, and where we are heading as a nation. What I want to hear from either candidate is how they plan to halt or at least slow down the slide toward fascism that we appear to be destined to face. I have not heard that from either, maybe I am missing something though.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 4:37 AM
  • Like I figured, no reason to vote for McCain.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 7:43 PM

    lol,

    Still nothing. It's like Obama and Biden have been saying. They are out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time.

    Some of you need to equip yourselves with a high quality tin foil hat if you believe all of this nonsense. Maybe Obama isn't even a real person. Maybe he's a robot created by Al Qaeda during the Clinton administration, lmao.

    -- Posted by Richard on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 4:38 AM
  • Sound just like the false promises that Obama has promised & doesn't have a clue how to make those come true.

    -- Posted by SteelerT on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 9:57 PM

    Sort of like McCain and his idea to buy $300 billion dollars worth of default home mortgages, and his brilliant idea to introduce a spending freeze on everything except military, yet thinks we can prioritize health care, education, and energy simultaneously. LOL. How does he plan to do that when he wants to implement a spending freeze? Odd.

    Also, I noticed as darrick_04 and richard pointed out, STILL no reason to vote for you own candidate. PATHETIC.

    -- Posted by nascarfanatic on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 6:25 AM
  • I still havent heard a logical reason for anyone to vote for Obama.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 10:45 AM
  • Heres how the lies add up without a clue, how to fix the problems, there will be no questions here this is YOUR Democratic party not Republicans saying this...

    Today's New York Post contains an editorial on Barack Obama's spending plans that is definitely worth a read. Excerpts:

    You'd think having to engineer a $700 billion Wall Street rescue would've taught Washington the importance of a sound bottom line.

    Apparently not - especially if Democrats take full control of the nation next year.

    That much was made plain yesterday, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kicked off her push for an emergency "economic stimulus" package.

    Though what, exactly, she plans to "stimulate" - besides government debt and long-term taxpayer obligations, of course - remains unclear.

    Pelosi said last week that her plan's price tag could reach $150 billion - largely to expand government unemployment benefits and food-stamp programs.

    That alone should give the lie to Barack Obama's pledge that everything in his vaunted economic plan is "paid for" - either in revenue savings or new taxes.

    Not with free-spending allies like Pelosi on the Hill, it won't be.

    Actually, Obama was up to many of the same tricks himself yesterday, calling for massive new government spending as part of a new "middle-class rescue plan."

    Among his proposed goodies: cash payouts to states for infrastructure-rebuilding projects, expanded unemployment benefits and fast-tracked loans to the US auto industry.

    "How will we pay for it?" he asked rhetorically. "You can't ask that when we're paying $10 billion a month to rebuild Iraq."

    ---- Notice how that's not an answer ----

    Yes, it's not an answer, and I noticed.

    Obama is proposing new spending totaling $1 trillion or so over the course of just one four-year presidential term, and it really is about time that he started explaining how he will pay for it all, rather than just claiming that he will.

    The details matter.

    -- Posted by SteelerT on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 3:59 PM
  • Well, actually SteelerT I would have to say for once I agree with Obama. We can not and should not continue to put American families needs aside to rebuild Iraq. We have been there long enough and have already thrown too much money into Iraq.

    Where was the outcry of people while we have been spending in Iraq like there's no tomorrow?

    Just think about how small our National Debt would be if there was no Iraq War to fund!! We could have possibly had the money to help our banks without Bankrupting the entire country, if we had not gone to Iraq in the first place.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 4:33 PM
  • Why should we help the banks that loaned money to people with outrageous interest rates & who couldn't afford these loans anyway ? I don't know about you but my calculator works & if i can't afford it ..... I don't buy it !

    -- Posted by SteelerT on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 4:40 PM
  • We shouldn't help the banks SteelerT but there are lots of other reasons for default loans besides sub prime mortgages. Please don't believe this was caused just buy people having outrageous loans.

    Contributing factors besides the sub prime loans is people of all walks of life have been loosing their jobs = No money to pay their mortgages regardless if it was sub prime or not.

    People are trying to refinance their homes because they have had to take a job making much less than they were 3 years ago..problem is when they go to try to refinance they find out their home isn't worth as much as the amount of the loan they have now...= No refinancing for them.

    Along with this fact of more and more people loosing their job completely or having to take smaller incomes leads to other problems like which bills are more important for them to be able to live...Credit card debt is soaring = That's one of the first bills people let default.

    Shopping is next, We buy less and less, we do without the things we normally have laying around the house.

    We buy cheaper brands or not at all.

    Then goes the health care insurance, we weigh the odds of spending every month on insurance vs whether or not we might have to go to the doctor.

    Bottom line is every one of these things has contributed to the Wall Street Crisis.

    Not every Prime Rate Mortgage is in default just like not every sub prime mortgage is in default.

    But the number is growing more and more everyday in both sub prime and prime mortgages.

    Look at all the businesses just in the past few weeks that are closing down factories and laying off employees.

    Believe me when I say this …it is far from over.

    Funny thing is, bailing out these banks will not stop foreclosures..so if the foreclosures was the problem to begin with doesn't it seem like stopping the foreclosures would have been the answer?

    But yet we throw about 1 trillion dollars at Wall Street to cover their losses..and maybe $600 at Americans. I find that comical, in a sad way.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 5:04 PM
  • Diana,

    I could not agree with you more.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 8:46 PM
  • Woulda, coulda, shouda, hindsight is no replacement for foresight. We dont get do-overs on this very important election so as a famous Tennessean once said," be sure your're right then go ahead". Honest to goodness, if we had any other valid person running that I thought could win, I would be screaming their name to high heaven, but everything else being equal, Acorns voter fraud has probably pretty well picked our president anyway. Im so proud to be voting in the same election as Mickey Mouse. Maybe next election we can run him for office. And ----- most of our media is determined to ignore it for the most part.

    -- Posted by cherokee2 on Tue, Oct 14, 2008, at 10:37 PM
  • I know this may suprise the Obama lovers but the 9/11 Terrorists had been training for a year or more in our country under Clintons rules & it was Clintons government that didn't even know where these illegals on expired visas were. Now how does that sound ? That is the facts !

    -- Posted by SteelerT on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 7:17 PM

    Your data is inaccurate SteelerT. The first 9/11 terrorists to arrive in the United States were Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. They arrived in mid January 2000. The other 9/11 terrorists arrived during 2000 through 2001. This would also indicate that their visas expired during the Bush administration. "Now how does that sound? That is the facts!"

    -- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Oct 15, 2008, at 8:40 AM
  • Here is another fact for SteelerT. Five of the 9/11 hijackers obtained visas through the "Visa Express" program. This program allowed residents of Saudi Arabia to obtain visas without proving their identity, without being interviewed, or even applying in person.

    This program was introduced by the BUSH administration in May,2001.

    -- Posted by Richard on Thu, Oct 16, 2008, at 12:49 AM
  • Some more truth... which none of the fear and smear folks can refute. It's funny cuz it's sad.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 16, 2008, at 10:46 PM
  • I think it's a shame that people have to resort to character assassinations when it comes to picking the president of the United States. It wouldn't matter if Obama was a Muslim because you don't have to be a Christian to be president. He isn't one, though, and people shouldn't call him one. Because of a law called jus soli, Obama's citizenship is valid. This is a frivolous lawsuit which needs to be thrown out.

    Someone asked why we should vote for Obama. One, he is pro-choice and doesn't want abortion laws to be decided by the states. Two, if you make under $250,000 a year, your going to get a tax cut. I don't know about you, but I don't even come close to that amount. Three, his plan for healthcare is so much better than McCain's. I would love to see us go to universal healthcare, but it's not going to happen, even under Obama. No one in history has taxed employer based health benefits, but McCain wants to. Who can buy insurance for $5000 a year anyway?

    I could never vote for McCain because of the way he acted at Wednesday's debate with regards to the health of a woman when she is pregnant. Tennessee doesn't think enough of our lives to have an exception to its right of refusal laws. We don't need a national leader who is against it, too.

    -- Posted by tamb on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 12:38 AM
  • So a woman should have a choice to kill her child if she does not want it?

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 8:49 AM
  • Sometimes, it has nothing to do with wanting a child. Sometimes, it has to do with a woman living or making decisions about an unborn child who has a fatal diagnosis and will only suffer if brought into this world. When you've been there, as I have been, then you can make a statement like that.

    -- Posted by tamb on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 12:09 PM
  • What percentage of abortions are out of situations where the mother is likely to die, and how many because someone does not want to take responsibility for their actions?

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 12:25 PM
  • Let me ask you a question. Do you know what the laws for abortion are in the state of Tennessee? In case you don't, I'll tell you. All second trimester abortions have to be done in a hospital, and doctors and hospitals have the right of refusal, meaning they don't have to perform the procedure. There are no exceptions for the life of the mother, a fatal prenatal diagnosis or rape or incest. Because of this, a woman could die if she develops pre-eclampsia at 21 weeks if a hospital or doctor is not willing to perform the procedure.

    These laws also force women who are faced with a poor prenatal diagnosis into carrying to term. My baby had Trisomy 18, which is always fatal. Her brain didn't develop and her skull didn't form. She would have been in pain for her entire life, but because of the state laws here, I was forced to carry her for as long as she lived.

    When you fall into those small percentages, your perspective on a lot of things change. Percentages haven't been in my favor lately, as our baby only had a ten percent chance of having it. I've been doing a letter writing campaign to get the laws changed to add an exception to the law for the life of the mother, a fatal prenatal diagnosis and for rape and incest. I hope it will do some good, because a woman's life is worth something and parents should be able to make healthcare decisions for their sick unborn children just as they do for their sick born children.

    -- Posted by tamb on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 12:43 PM
  • I am sorry you had to go through that. I could not imagine it. As far as the statistics go

    1%rape incest 6%potential health problems 93%is for social reasons. Now if there is a life threatening situation, and it would have to be serious I can see it. For any other reason is murder plain and simple. A womans life is worth a lot, but a childs is worth just as much.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 1:29 PM
  • Thank you. It was the hardest things I've ever had to go through. She was stillborn in August.

    I know the statistics. I'm not trying to get the laws overturned so that anyone can obtain an abortion for any reason in the second trimester. I don't want that. I don't understand the need for a second trimester abortion anyway, unless it's for the health of the mother, fatal prenatal diagnosis and rape and incest. I just want an amendment added to our current laws that say a hospital has to perform second trimester abortions, and have doctors on staff who are willing to do so, in the case of health of the mother, fatal prenatal diagnosis and rape and incest.

    While these laws keep women who want to have abortions for social reasons from doing so, they are also punishing those women who need them for the above reasons. Why punish these women who are already hurting enough?

    -- Posted by tamb on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 1:45 PM
  • My problem is with the 93% that are murdered for social reasons. There are about 1.37 million babies killed every year. How can we justify this mass murder it makes my head spin.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 3:10 PM
  • The same way some justify mass genocide and murder of entire nations... War and abortion, neither are good for anyone... does that make your head spin? If you say "sometimes war is necessary" then you must also conclude, "sometimes abortion is necessary."

    -- Posted by Disturbia on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 6:48 PM
  • I never thought about it until tonight but abortion could have solved quite a few of these disturbing comments.

    However, since abortion is premeditated murder in most cases I guess that we should put up with the comments and not think such thoughts.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 7:32 PM
  • I find it curious that a lot of people that complain about taxes, social programs and a general decline in morality seem to also want every unwanted child ever conceived to be born. Abortion is a tough issue, and while I do not condone it and would strongly advise against it, until we get the social structure in place to properly care for and place these babies, we may want to really think about not making it illegal. I believe prevention is a great place to start, and counseling can do wonders in many cases of un-planned pregnancy. Adoption is also an alternative in many situations, but unfortunately not all. There are some hard cases in this world, and to believe every one of these children will have a family and a good and full life may be wishful thinking.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 7:47 PM
  • More social structure?????

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 8:35 PM
  • In my case if I had been allowed to end my pregnancy, it would not have been premeditated murder. Instead, it would be like a parent turning off the machines or stopping treatment for a terminally ill child. I sincerely hope no one on here ever has to go through what I did.

    For those women who are against abortion, would you really want to carry a baby destined to die at birth or soon after? Would you want to put a much loved child through hours of pain if they did happen to live a few hours or days after birth? Do you know what it's like carrying a baby that you know is going to die? You spend every day wondering if your baby has died or if this will be the day the baby dies. Then, there is the guilt you feel because you want to do something to keep your much loved baby from baby, but state law keeps you from doing anything.You know that if she does live after birth, doctors will not take any life saving measures to help her because Trisomy 18 is deemed incompatible with life. Even comfort care is painful because of all the poking and prodding. Now, think about all of that and tell me do you think the laws in this state are just?

    Men, would you want your wife to go through that? Or, if she developed pre-eclampsia which can be deadly if the baby isn't delivered very early in her pregnancy, both she and your baby would die because a hospital or doctor could refuse to do the procedure. Would you want her to leave you? If you have other children at home, would you want them to be without a mother?

    This is why the laws need an exception for life of the mother, fatal prenatal diagnosis and rape or incest. This is why the laws should not go to the state because these types of laws can be enacted. This is why I have to vote for a pro-choice candidate, because my life was severely affected this summer by stupid state laws, and I don't believe anyone should have to go through that again.

    -- Posted by tamb on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 10:26 PM
  • tamb

    I am truly sorry you had to go through this it is a shame when a woman can not decide what is best for her or her unborn child.

    parkerbros

    Are you willing to take in every unwanted child and raise them until they are 18 years old?

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 12:04 AM
  • parkerbros

    Are you willing to take in every unwanted child and raise them until they are 18 years old?

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 12:04 AM

    Dianatn,

    No and that is why I am against a social program that would in essence have me and everyone else that is working paying more taxes to support the program while they are laid up engaged in the lustful act that produces even more babies. What is wrong with the idea of personal responsibility?

    While there are rare instances to prove otherwise, I would venture to say that 99.9% of abortions are on babies that were created out of an act of lust versus an act of love.

    Educate people on the Biblical concepts of the differences between love and lust and the abortion issue would probably not be an issue. Although TV has provided a deception that lust is love there is a more accurate source on the concepts that could be read to help people differeniate the two in raw principle.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 7:20 AM
  • tamb,

    You are probably one of the rare instances I was talking about.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 7:22 AM
  • I find it curious that a lot of people that complain about taxes, social programs and a general decline in morality seem to also want every unwanted child ever conceived to be born.

    -- Posted by -- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 7:47 PM

    memyselfi,

    You would not find anything to be curious about if you understood the theory of personal accountability and responsibility.

    If you could grasp the thought that Uncle Sam is not mommy and daddy your curiousity would flee from you.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 7:30 AM
  • personal responsibility?

    You've got to be kidding me? You of all people have no right to preach of personal responsibility.

    How can a child of 14 or 15 have personal responsibility?

    How is any person who is raped suppose to have personal responsibility? Children that are raped or have had incest committed against them, are they too suppose to have personal responsibility? I guess the mentally unstable should have personal responsibility also? I do not believe abortion should be used as a birth control method but we all make mistakes, even you parkerbros. Abortion should be an option for every woman who feels she can not care for her unborn child. Maybe if Fathers didn't walk away from the mothers of these children so often, woman wouldn't feel so compelled to have abortions.

    The Bible is a great book parkerbros but there is not every answer in that book. One day it might be a good idea for you to pull yourself away from your Bible long enough to look out your door at the real world.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 9:23 AM
  • parkerbrothers, Yes, social structure is required. I would hate to think that someone advocated a pro life position, but then thought it would be okay to throw the unwanted babies into the dumpster after they were a week old. Seriously, like Dianatn said, they have to be raised somehow and by someone. There are many that would be great candidates for adoption, and I also believe counseling and even those awful "social programs" could prevent some abortions, but like I said, there are some hard cases. Look how many children there are in foster care today and try to imagine how that number would increase. It will cost a lot of money and if it is not done right, a good percentage of these children will need those pesky social programs for their entire lives.

    I do understand personal responsibility. Again, like Dianatn said, none of us are perfect and we do make mistakes, all of us. That is not even addressing the large group of children growing up today that have no one to teach them about personal responsibility, because their role models are working so hard to provide the necessities of life.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 10:55 AM
  • Personal responsibility? LOL... Yeah, show us how that's done... don't just talk about it.

    -- Posted by Vindicated on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 2:46 AM
  • The Bible is a great book parkerbros but there is not every answer in that book. One day it might be a good idea for you to pull yourself away from your Bible long enough to look out your door at the real world.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 9:23 AM

    Dianatn,

    It is not just a book. It is the Word of God that does have all the answers. It even has all the questions.

    No need to pull my self away from the Bible and look out the front door at the real world. I already know what I will see. I have read about it in the Bible. It was foretold.

    You and the rest of the world might profit by coming out of the world a little and into the Bible more. You might benefit by making it your go-to for answers.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 9:12 AM
  • I do understand personal responsibility. Again, like Dianatn said, none of us are perfect and we do make mistakes, all of us. That is not even addressing the large group of children growing up today that have no one to teach them about personal responsibility, because their role models are working so hard to provide the necessities of life.

    -- Posted by I do understand personal responsibility. Again, like Dianatn said, none of us are perfect and we do make mistakes, all of us. That is not even addressing the large group of children growing up today that have no one to teach them about personal responsibility, because their role models are working so hard to provide the necessities of life.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 10:55 AM

    memyselfi,

    I venture to say that your definition of working so hard is one "40 hour workweek". Our parents and grandparents found time to teach their children all about personal responsibility and most of them did not know what it meant to only work 40 hours a week. They would have considered that a fantasy or dream.

    The problem is everyone has lost touch with what it means to work hard.

    Somehow there are people out there much like yourself that think we as Americans are "entitled" to basic things that the previous generations thought they had to work for. It seems that it has become an embedded notion that everyone is "entitled" to have a new home, new car, new this , new that, new whatever is new just because we are an American and work a 40 hour workweek.

    Never in the life of this country have we become such an unproductive workforce.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 9:24 AM
  • parkerbrothers, A single 40 hour work week at $8.00 an hour is appalling. There are many people in our society trying to carve out a living on that. You appear to discount that not so long ago, most families (and I mean complete families) could be supported by a 40 hour work week at a job that provided a degree of security and a livable wage. Mortgage, food and various other expenses could be procured for the labor of one person (usually the father). Now, even if a family is lucky enough to have 2 incomes, unless one happens to be very high, they struggle. That money has been "redistributed" to the top of our economy. I assure you that the average single mother out there working to make the shareholders and investors happy, does not feel entitled to anything, except a sustenance existence. If she needs food stamps to feed her children, that in and of itself is appalling to me. You should tell her that the reason she is struggling is because she does not work hard. If you are at a loss to find someone to explain it to, by all means please go to Wal-Mart or Kroger or any one of the pencil manufactures, and for that matter a construction site here in town. I imagine you will find many of those lazy, no count, un-responsible blood suckers who believe they are entitled to enough food to feed their families, and you can explain the benefits of hard work to them. I am thinking most of them have gross misconceptions about who benefits from their hard work. I am not trying to be mean, but we are so far apart on this, we could find more common ground interpreting the Bible, it would appear.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 2:11 PM
  • Amen memyselfi I couldn't agree with you more.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 2:58 PM
  • memyselfi,

    If a single 40 hour work week at $8.00 is appaling then work two of them. I did for years. Let me correct that and say decades. I had to. Very few weeks have I worked less than 80 hours a week, even today.

    I saw my father work 3 jobs and my mother 2 at times to make ends meet. All the while raising a garden, canning and freezing vegtables, trying to raise a cow and pig to eat, making lard, etc., etc., etc. I watched our neighbors do the same. It was a working neighborhood.

    Now all I see is a bunch of whiners that can not seem to get weaned off the tit milk.

    Grow up. We all have to live within our means. I could whine for weeks about things but it is not the thing to do. We have had to make cuts upon top of cuts to survive this mess created by a bunch of idiotic Socialist that do not recognize the calf grows better when it comes off the tit and goes to the grass, let alone how much better the moma cow does.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 8:26 PM
  • Excuse me "I must go puke now". All this "Christian" attitude is making me sick.

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 10:01 PM
  • Grow up. We all have to live within our means. I could whine for weeks about things but it is not the thing to do. We have had to make cuts upon top of cuts to survive this mess created by a bunch of idiotic Socialist that do not recognize the calf grows better when it comes off the tit and goes to the grass, let alone how much better the moma cow does.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 8:26 PM

    Hilarious... Why doesn't the corporate world and the United States government have to "live within its means"? If they had, there would be no $10 trillion national debt, and no $1 trillion dollar financial bailout. When you talk about idiotic socialists, it must unnerve you to look in the mirror everyday and realize you are a product of socialism. This is the United States of America, we socialize almost everything. Just look around, after all what is the "Federal Reserve" and exactly where in the Constitution does it say such an entity is even legal? There is a list so long from A-Z of government agencies and departments that are nothing but useless distribution of tax payer dollars, many of which I am sure you use or come into contact with on a daily basis, but are not aware of it.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 10:38 PM
  • Again, you advocate people working 80 hours a week and then want to whine about the morality of our children who are growing up alone with television being their role model. Now it all makes sense to me. Let's eliminate all the entitlements directed to the many, and as darrick_04 pointed out, continue or increase the entitlements to the few.

    Why not just stand up and openly proclaim what you apparently believe to be the best social structure. I have heard others advocate a return to indentured servitude or chattel slavery; you would not be the first.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 12:38 AM
  • Hilarious... Why doesn't the corporate world and the United States government have to "live within its means"? If they had, there would be no $10 trillion national debt, and no $1 trillion dollar financial bailout.

    Posted by darrick_04 on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 10:38 PM

    darrick_04,

    If you could see that seperating the two would probabaly achieve this you would understand. A good example would be the 2.4 trillion dollars that Clinton had injected into stupid "entitling" programs for home ownership.

    The Federal government needs to stick to providing a defence for this country and let the free wheeling supply and demand principles run the business side. Everytime a bunch of short term thinking Democrats(in general) try to play business with the government we end up with a long term problem. Whether it be the farmers or the home industry the government screws up everything when they play businessman.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 7:10 AM
  • Again, you advocate people working 80 hours a week and then want to whine about the morality of our children who are growing up alone with television being their role model.

    Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 12:38 AM

    memyselfi,

    A responsible parent would control both the home and the TV. Also there is the garden that could replace the TV????

    Or would you propose a new "entitlement" that gave every child a new 60" inch flat screen TV?? After all they are American children and deserve nothing but the best in your opinion.

    Study the definition of best. And try to think long term for once.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 7:16 AM
  • The Federal government needs to stick to providing a defence for this country and let the free wheeling supply and demand principles run the business side. Everytime a bunch of short term thinking Democrats(in general) try to play business with the government we end up with a long term problem. Whether it be the farmers or the home industry the government screws up everything when they play businessman.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 7:10 AM

    Right, I guess you forgot that our current president and Treasury Secretary who wanted government to get involved with business and inject nearly $1 trillion of funds we don't have, are Republican. Why not just let the markets work themselves out? WAKE UP our president is not a Democrat and he is the same man that started business after business and they all failed, it any wonder his government, coupled with increased wages and lower taxes for the rich, would justify any other outcome?

    -- Posted by Disturbia on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 8:57 AM
  • Right, I guess you forgot that our current president and Treasury Secretary who wanted government to get involved with business and inject nearly $1 trillion of funds we don't have, are Republican.

    Posted by Disturbia on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 8:57 AM

    Disturbia,

    No I have not forgot it. I forget few good things. They had to do what they did and should have done it. After all it should be considered admirable for the Republicans to help provide child care to the Democratic baby that was now reaching adolescence.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 9:31 AM
  • Disturbia,

    You can say what you want but that baby is gonna cry Democrat all day and night long for mommy.

    Even with a Republican made pacifier it still knows mommy is Democrat.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 9:35 AM
  • PB, what party had full Control of Congress under Clinton? This isn't about blame and who deserves it, it is about the solution... Get this, if we didn't have two wars (that could cost more than $1 trillion) the financial bailout would have been paid for, in full, with one check... Or, if we had paid closer to attention to the markets and emphasized a little more regulation the crisis could have been avoided. See what happens when you are so worried about developing other countries into "Democracies" that you forget you are president of the U.S.A. ...

    If Bush knew this were a problem when he inherited the office you would think his first term would have been spent trying to correct it, rather than being on vacation more than any other president in recent memory.

    -- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 9:56 AM
  • But anyways,

    Obamna is a U.S. citizen, so we can move past that idiotic notion that somehow he isn't or wasn't.

    -- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 9:59 AM
  • But anyways,

    Obama is a U.S. citizen, so we can move past that idiotic notion that somehow he isn't or wasn't.

    -- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 9:59 AM
  • jesuslovesevery1,

    Bush tried to correct it in 2003 but all the Democrats and a few Republicans turned the blind eye to it and the majority ruled.

    I believe Bush's plan was hailed as the greatest financial reform proposal since the Depression by Wall Street.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 11:50 AM
  • Get this, if we didn't have two wars (that could cost more than $1 trillion) the financial bailout would have been paid for, in full, with one check

    Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 9:56 AM

    jesuslovesevery1,

    The only mistake I believe Bush made with the war was not handling it more simply like the Japanese were dealt with 60+- years ago when they took nearly the same amount of American life by almost the same method. It did not take them long to tie a bunch of white sheets together and learn the lesson.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 11:54 AM
  • jesuslovesevery1,

    Bush tried to correct it in 2003 but all the Democrats and a few Republicans turned the blind eye to it and the majority ruled.

    I believe Bush's plan was hailed as the greatest financial reform proposal since the Depression by Wall Street.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 11:50 AM

    You are dillusional. The Republicans held a majority, with a Republican executive branch. If they wanted to stop it, but ironically in the same year, 2003, they were getting ready to attack an innocent nation. So, 5 years later their priorities are both obvious... Both situations were handled incorrectly.

    -- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 12:04 PM
  • jesuslovesevery1,

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    Even though the Republicans held a majority it was not an overwhelming one. If all the Democrats voted against the reform it only took a couple of Republicans to be deceived into creating the majority vote. It is one of the few times they should not have reached out across party lines.

    I personally think that every Democrat and Republican that voted against it should be removed from office by the vote of the people.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 12:09 PM
  • jesuslovesevery1,

    You would probably have a different opinion of the war if you had been looking out the windows of the twin towers and seen the face of the men in the cockpit coming at and slightly below you. It is a shame they are not here today to try and help convince you. They tried to make it here and talk to you by jumping out of the windows.

    Have you ever been in the twin towers on the top floors and looked out? I have and I feel what they went through.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 12:15 PM
  • parkerbrothers, How were the Japanese dealt with simply?

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 12:21 PM
  • I have no problem with a war in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is, because that is who attacked the United States. However, Iraq never attacked us. They never had weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied to us, which has lead to more than 4,000 men and women being killed. Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Centers. Maybe if we had concentrated more on Afghanistan than on Iraq, we might have had Bin Laden by now.

    -- Posted by tamb on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 12:24 PM
  • parkerbrothers, Okay, I am not even going to wait for you to answer. I am assuming that you are referring to the simple act of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. How could a Christian who advocates a pro life position believe that the best way to handle anything is the death of about a quarter of a million civilians? These people did not control their government. They were victims of their government and our own. It escapes me how anyone could advance the idea that this was a good and just act, and please do not resort to OT scripture mining, as it will not justify anything at all, unless you now claim to be Jewish.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 1:28 PM
  • memyselfi, I totally agree with you on that, too. It bothers me so much when pro-life people talk about the sanctity of life but still advocate for war and the death penalty. If all life is sacred, that includes the lives of our soldiers and even the "sinners" who commit crimes.

    -- Posted by tamb on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 1:31 PM
  • As a Pro-life advocate, I believe all life is sacred, both inside the womb and outside the womb. I am not for the death penalty, although I am for a life sentence without the possibility of parole. While I guess I could be described as a pacifist for the most part, I fully support our military and do not want it dismantled. These beliefs would be part of the basis on how I will vote in our upcoming president, but no matter how the vote turns out, the winner will be OUR president, not YOUR president. We may not agree with the person, but we need to respect the office.

    -- Posted by Sharon22 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 2:00 PM
  • memyselfi,

    All I can say is "how much trouble has Japan caused since"?

    People elect most of their governments and must suffer the consequences of their elected officials decisions.

    A quarter of a million people is nothing compared to the way our God will show his proper definition of when it is a time for war. Those two bombs will become viewed as little firecrackers when the final declaration of war is administered onto sin.

    If you live to see this declaration you will in the twinkling of an eye become anti-atheist.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 2:28 PM
  • Elections all over the world are a joke. Even in Imperial Japan 60 years ago, but I'm not going to get into that now. So, the people in the Twin Towers were responsible and should suffer for their elected leaders actions right? The aborted babies will also be a drop in the bucket, so why be concerned? You need to be looking at the big picture. Those aborted babies will not cause any more trouble to anyone, so please get with the program.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 2:46 PM
  • Elections all over the world are a joke.

    Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 2:46 PM

    memyselfi,

    Democracy that provides for elections is never a joke. You should be made to stand in front of all the ones that have gave their life so you could have the opportunity to rightfully condemn what they fought for here today.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 3:17 PM
  • So, the people in the Twin Towers were responsible and should suffer for their elected leaders actions right?

    Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 2:46 PM

    memyselfi,

    I did not say they should but rather they have to.

    Did they pay for their elected officials decisions? Absolutely. They paid dearly. They lost it all.

    I firmly believe if the Clinton administration would have been more focused on military and defense instead of trying to "entitle" everybody into what they thought everybody needed they may have not paid so dearly with their precious lives.

    Of course I know he had the excuse he could not hear the defense report because of the vacuum cleaner running under his desk but that is not good enough for me.

    God, what a mess he left for Bush to inherit. At least the vacuum cleaner left with him.

    I am still curious. Were you ever priviledged to have viewed the world from atop the twin towers before they simply fell to the ground because of bad engineering?

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 3:28 PM
  • By the same token, you should be made to stand in front of all the people that gave their lives (civilians, like the ¼ of a million Japanese that died in the bombing, and soldiers of both sides) because of wars that benefit the wealthy and disregard the common people. Few wars are really about freedom PB, and most elections represent 2 sides of a very narrow view of the world to choose from. I will concede WWI & WWII had some worthy ideals, but was Vietnam about freedom? Iraq? If you feel the need to resort to that kind of reply, I will stop wasting my time.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 3:31 PM
  • At least the vacuum cleaner left with him Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 3:28 PM

    That makes about 3 times you have made this sort of comment..Are you jealous?

    -- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 4:59 PM
  • Democracy that provides for elections is never a joke. You should be made to stand in front of all the ones that have gave their life so you could have the opportunity to rightfully condemn what they fought for here today.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 3:17 PM

    Hmm, maybe, but the U.S.A. is not a democracy, figured you'd know that. If you truly paid attention to the words in the 'Pledge of Allegiance' you'd understand.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 6:04 PM
  • Under the REPUBLIC for which it stands?

    -- Posted by Sharon22 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 11:07 PM
  • Very good Sharon. ;) There is a big difference between the two... unfortunately there are millions upon millions of U.S. citizens who have no clue what those difference are.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 11:55 PM
  • True Darrick. I had several very good history and government teachers in high school, and that was back in the dark ages (at least it seems like it). We are sorely missing something in our education when people are heading into an election, yet don't understand the difference between and democracy and a republic or socialism and communism or facism.

    -- Posted by Sharon22 on Tue, Oct 21, 2008, at 12:09 AM
  • Very good Sharon. ;) There is a big difference between the two... unfortunately there are millions upon millions of U.S. citizens who have no clue what those difference are.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 11:55 PM

    That could be said for quite a few things.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Oct 21, 2008, at 4:17 AM
  • I think the confusion stems from the fact that every society seems to approach their choice of governments as if from an al-a-carte menu. In the best scenario, an accurate description of a system of government is abstract. When you add to that the amalgamation of many aspects of different philosophies, it becomes very difficult to isolate any single ideal or world view.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Oct 21, 2008, at 12:50 PM
  • We are sorely missing something in our education when people are heading into an election, yet don't understand the difference between and democracy and a republic or socialism and communism or facism.

    Posted by Sharon22 on Tue, Oct 21, 2008, at 12:09 AM

    Very good Sharon. ;) There is a big difference between the two... unfortunately there are millions upon millions of U.S. citizens who have no clue what those difference are.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 11:55 PM

    Sharon22 and Darrick_04,

    Trust me 99.9% of the people including me know the general worth while mentioning differences between a Democracy and a Rebublic much like you know the double accepted meaning of Democracy.

    While it could be effectively argued there is a difference between a book and a story I think much more is gained by simply understanding the story of the book.

    The story I just read above told of a couple who thought they were much more educated than millions and millions of U.S. citizens.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Oct 21, 2008, at 4:51 PM
  • Whether you agree with anything or nothing that parkerbrothers has posted, I think it is nitpicking to take his statement about democracy outside of its intended meaning. Even a cursory search on Google will reveal multiple references to the United States as a democracy or a representative democracy. Just as contemporary usage of democracy takes many forms, there are also many forms of republics. Even Iraq has been called a republic since 1958.

    -- Posted by devan on Tue, Oct 21, 2008, at 5:42 PM
  • Well said Devan. Reminds me of watching two old men finally decide to flip a coin on the issue of whether they were living in a Democratic Republic or a Republican Democracy. The coin flipped through the air, it hit the ground, and rolled into the crack in the sidewalk standing straight up. They looked up at one another and at the same time one said "neither"?? and the other said "both"??

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Oct 21, 2008, at 8:23 PM
  • At this point in time, I would have to agree with the old man thad claimed we lived in neither.

    -- Posted by memyselfi on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 6:55 AM
  • Perhaps we could flip a new coin. I think we live in both.

    The moral of the story is....Anytime both of anything could be more or less something then neither of either could be less than more than nothing.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 8:06 AM
  • Now there is another lawsuit filed against Obama over his citizenship.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 10:54 AM
  • And Palin has charged the state of Alaska for expenses involving travel of her children,including some stays in $300,$400, and $700 dollar a night hotles. She even went in and amended the reports to make them seem as though KIDS are on official business. Lol, the former governor of Alaska said there was not one event that his children attended on official business at the taxpayers expense, during his tenure...

    And we thought she fought corruption... please, will someone hold he accountable? Or was that just a punch line in her Convention speech?

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 11:19 AM
  • When asked what the V.P. does here was Palin's response:

    ""[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom," she said."

    She must have concluded that was the case since Dick Cheney believes the V.P. is not part of the executive branch. Lol, the only thing a V.P. does is provide a tie-breaking vote.. And it looks as though that won't be necessary for a few years.

    Btw, Obama is a U.S. citizen... I am just trying to move on from a point that was settled 20 months ago.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 11:21 AM
  • I dont think that point has been settled at all. If it had been there would not be any question. Just like every other questionable part of Obamas life, if Obama says it, it must be true.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 12:25 PM
  • Not to compare Obama to Jesus, but what do we know about Jesus from birth til the age of say 13, and from 13 to age 33? Hmmmm, I don't know anything for a TWENTY YEAR period of a man who came to save human kind... Yet I believe he did... You do as well, correct?

    Strikes me as completely odd that you would accept one as being 100% fact (based on faith yadayadayada), while disregarding the other (which provides proof) as completely questionable.

    Side note: I only use that comparison as a method of pointing out complete contradictions in theology.. in no way, shape or form, do I believe Barack Obama equals or comes CLOSE to Jesus... however I can not get over this notion for truth from the same group of people who accept an antire 2000 page book on the premise of faith...

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Wed, Oct 22, 2008, at 9:13 PM
  • darrick_04,

    So, like greasemonkey said, you think everyone should accept anything Obama says is true just because Obama said it is true?

    Only a dreamer would accept his answer as the answer just because he said it is the answer. I find it hard to place any faith in anyone running for President who does not know how many States are in the United States and that Oregon is part of the Great Lakes?

    I think that should be reasons for dissallowing a student to graduate from high school, let alone run for President of the United States.

    I hope he does not get Israel mixed up with Afghanistan.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 7:52 AM
  • ommission - - insert "believes" in between "that" and "Oregon"

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 7:57 AM
  • At least we have some kind of documentation on Jesus, lol. No really, I think Obama probably is a legal citizen, but the fact he keeps dodging all these things is what troubles me.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 9:00 AM
  • but other than that, it was the same old change the subject non answer I am beginning to get used to.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 9:01 AM
  • Charismatics rely on you just getting used to it greasemonkey. Beware of it to gaurd against it influencing you.

    Before anyone starts complaining about the notion of charisma let me say that I think it is a good quality to have for everyone including our president. I just do not think it should be the primary and sustaining driving force of any candidate to the point people start overlooking inexperience and flawed thinking. It becomes dangerous when it reaches that level.

    A lot of the other type candidates that are heavily experienced and deep thinking candidates come across as dry and serious due to the depth of knowledge and data they are constantly processing. It is hard for them to exhibit charismatic personalities due to this.

    I still prefer to have a dry serious business minded Commander in Chief as oppossed to a charismatic inexperienced and shallow one. It would actually be nice if you could find a combination of both but it is hard to find candiates that possess both of those good qualities.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 11:04 AM
  • Parkerbrothers, I commend your arguments, but I am afraid with these readers, you are whipping a dead horse. By the way, is anyone aware that Ayres (an Obama business associate among other things) and his Weathermen advocated killing 25 million Americans that they felt could not be retrained or educated in their new world order. This from one of their own people. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/eliminating_25_million_america.html

    It should scare some of us badly. It's too late for the rest.

    -- Posted by cherokee2 on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 3:35 PM
  • cherokee2,

    People who are drawn to and follow charismatic leaders are some of the hardest to reason with. There are some interesting studies and theories on the effect that these leaders have on the minds of their followers.

    As I said earlier I would prefer to see a dry and serious Commander in Chief discuss the 50 United States with another World leader as I had to have a charismatic Commander in Chief discuss the 57 United States. And if the charistmatic thinks Oregon is part of the Great Lakes I had just as soon he refrain from talking to any of the World Leaders until we can get Oregon moved over to the Great Lakes.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 9:09 PM
  • People who are drawn to and follow charismatic leaders are some of the hardest to reason with.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 9:09 PM

    Yeah, those 12 disciples were pretty difficult to reason with.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Fri, Oct 24, 2008, at 8:48 PM
  • darrick_04,

    I actually did not know any of the 12 to be charismatic speakers. My reading and study has found them to be a little dry and to the point.

    Your problem is "you" would probably try to reason with them.

    No darrick_04, even a charismatic such as Obama could not convince the 12 diciples of some of the popular ideas of today. Even the current growing idea of gay marriages being acceptable is beyond Obamas ability to convince the 12 diciples of. Do you think the charismatic one could convince the 12 disciples of such?

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 25, 2008, at 9:26 AM
  • I actually did not know any of the 12 to be charismatic speakers. My reading and study has found them to be a little dry and to the point.

    Your problem is "you" would probably try to reason with them.

    -------> I don't think the disciples were charismatic at all, however they followed a very "charismatic" leader, which was just humor.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Oct 25, 2008, at 10:30 PM
  • darrick_04,

    Humor with Christ???

    You have even more things things a little mixed up.

    -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 9:18 AM
  • darrick,

    for someone who doesnt believe that Obama is his lord and saviour, you sure do compare him to Jesus alot.

    Just some more humor.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 11:40 AM
  • Just some more humor.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 11:40 AM

    Obviously.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 11:59 AM
  • Well I thought it was funny, lol.

    -- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 3:36 PM
  • Slingshot, I can assure you that Governor Palin has never heard of you either.

    -- Posted by cherokee2 on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 6:22 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: