gadgetlady

Here's a great video on the economic problem we're currently in: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcJMotDF1rA]YouTube - Deregulation: The Big Lie[/ame]

Green, happy to hear you're on the other side of this fight. I have another friend who just finished up chemo and radiation as well, and I am much more aware of how challenging and wearing it can be. I think of you and pray for you regularly.

{whispering} I found several YouTube clips that had that quote in there. I chose the one that happened to also be a pro-life commercial, just cuz I could. There are plenty of other clips on YouTube of the exact same statement that don't have the pro-life message in the voice-over :thumbup:

A sound byte is a phrase that means something taken out of a long speech. If it is not taken out of context or disguised in another fashion, there's no reason to not consider it accurate. In fact, things that are said during Q&A sessions are often much more informative than things said during speeches, because they're not as planned. This sound byte was not taken out of context. It was the answer to a specific question. Obama hasn't denied saying it. There's no controversy over the quote at all. I asked if you were aware that Obama said the first thing he'd do in office was sign FOCA. You asked me to get you a link. I did. He said it. You can claim he said other things, too, and I would agree with you. But he also said this.

Another update - Tiffany just called me to direct me to the birth mother's MySpace page. It gave me chills: MySpace.com - Aimee - 29 - Female - OJAI, California - www.myspace.com/sobergirl29. She made it a public page because she wants to get the word out about what a wonderful thing adoption is. I am humbled to have played a small part in this.

From Sen. Obama, Stand And Deliver! -- Frank Salvato -- GOPUSA t appears that the Illinois State Board of Elections doesn't verify a candidate's eligibility beyond requiring: 1) A Statement of Candidacy -- This form (I use the FEC form as it encompasses everything in the Illinois form) requires each candidate to provide his name, address, party affiliation, office sought, the state and district of the contest, a designation of a principle campaign committee, the designation of other authorized committees and a declaration of intent to expend personal funds. (web site) Lastly, it requires a potential candidate to "attest" that he or she is "qualified for the office specified." At no place in the official guide or paperwork is a birth certificate or other form of verification of natural born citizenship required. 2) A Loyalty Oath -- Ironically, this is optional. 3) Receipt for filing a Statement of Economic Interests -- This is not required for Federal Office or political party offices. 4) Completed Nominating Petitions -- These petitions must be correctly filed out, notarized and contain a sufficient number of original signatures as set forth by the election commission. Being familiar with the election process in Illinois, I then examined my county board of election's requirements. Their requirements deferred (web site) to the requirements of the State of Illinois. Again, the question remains, is there an entity -- whether on a federal, state, county or municipal level -- that verifies a candidate's satisfaction of the requirements set forth by the US Constitution for holding the office of President of the United States? His birth certificate has been sealed by Hawaii's Governor (I believe that happened today), so it will take the US Supreme Court to get to the document. Here are other documents of Obama's that we can't see or are "unavailable" (this list was compiled by a friend of mine): - Occidental College records - not released. - Columbia Thesis paper - not available, locked down by faculty. - Harvard College records - not released, locked down by faculty. - Selective Service Registration - not released. - Medical records - not released (only a one-page report). - Illinois State Senate schedule - "not available." - Law practice client list - not released. - Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - not released. - Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth - not released. - Harvard Law Review articles published - None. - University of Chicago scholarly articles - None.

ATF: Plot to kill Obama is foiled - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com. Dispicable.

Thank you, Elisabeth. I was quite surprised at someone's attacking me on my "past" (not even sure what that means), my "rep", and my "credibility." I understand not agreeing with me, but that's just plain out of line.

Where did I make it sound like his whole speech was about that? I simply said that he has said that the first thing he would do as President is sign FOCA. It is a fact that he made that statement; it is also a fact that he said other things as well, but I would expect a politician to say a lot of things when giving a speech, so there's no surprise there.

That appears to be the text of the speech he gave, yes, but he also did say during the Q&A session that the first thing he would do as President is sign FOCA. Are you saying the video clip is inaccurate?

When you attack someone personally, the rest of what you say sounds like all the adults in the Charlie Brown cartoons. Would you care to tell the rest of the class where you came up with the idea that I support a Flat Earth theory?

BJean, I'm surprised you didn't know about it. Here's a link to a commercial showing the words coming right out of his mouth: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__ctD48nfQ&feature=related]YouTube - Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood, and FOCA[/ame] If you need more info about FOCA, lmk. It was brought to the Senate by Barbara Boxer and calls for, among other things, federal funding of abortion, a ban on providing fetal development information to mothers, a ban on parental notification laws, and a ban on laws requiring that the only ones able to perform abortions are licensed doctors.

{sigh} This is not just about a birth certificate. From the lawsuit, here are some of the claims: - Obama was adopted by a Foreign Citizen, Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia. - Obama has or had a passport from the Government of Indonesia. - Indonesia did not provide for dual citizenship when Obama received his passport there, which means he had to give up his US passport. - Obama would have needed to be an Indonesian citizen to enter the school he was enrolled in in Indonesia. - Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with his Pakistan friends, stopping in Indonesia on the way to renew his passport. - Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens. Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country, and therefore Obama traveled on his Indonesian Passport to Pakistan. Regardless of whether the Hawaiian birth certificate is real or not (or, I guess, the second one, because the first one was a fake), these are still legitimate questions to be answered. If Obama gave up his citizenship when he was a child, that makes him ineligible to be President. I know if you're an Obama supporter you don't like this issue, but that doesn't make people who have legitimate questions idiots or conspiracy-nuts.

BTW, this isn't just about whether he was born in Hawaii. It is also about whether he became an Indonesian citizen when he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father. Since Indonesia didn't have dual-citizenship at the time, he would have had to give up any US citizenship he had, making him constitutionally ineligible to run for President.

Nice try, but the guy who brought this suit is a lifelong Democrat who has held political office as a Democrat. Speaking for myself only (as I can't speak for others on this board but I hope they will chime in and agree), if the same concerns were raised about McCain -- and he refused to refute the evidence and/or phonied evidence up -- I would be equally concerned about the potential Constitutional crisis that might ensue.

Well said, Beth. And very true.

Uh, yeah. That's the same information I posted above. Berg is appealing to the Supreme Court (see above).

An informative video: Born Alive at One True Media - share slideshows, slide shows, MySpace slideshows, MySpace codes, free video sharing, video montages.

Did you know that Obama has said the first thing he'll do is sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), which would remove all restrictions on abortion, including partial-birth abortion, parental notification laws, and informed consent laws?

I just received this from a friend. The Tax System - Explained With Beer Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back then I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia

As far as I'm concerned, whatever people want to do with their own bodies, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, should be legal. Nobody cares if a woman chooses to have sex with a man (or vice versa) after he buys her a nice dinner. Why should anyone object if, instead of paying for dinner, he offers to simply give her the same money that the dinner would have cost him in the first place? How different is it from a man sleeping with his secretary and then giving her a raise? Am I morally opposed to prostitution? Absolutely. But I can see no legitimate grounds why it should be illegal.

Just headed off to bed and came across this article (Austin Hill : Can This Year?s Presidential Race End Peacefully? - Townhall.com) which states: At the liberal activist website MWCNews Dot Net (media with conscience), the following rhetoric appeared in a “report” filed last week: “If your television declares John McCain the president elect on the evening of November 4th, your television will be lying. You should immediately pick up your pre-packed bags and head straight to the White House in Washington, D.C., which we will surround and shut down until this attempt at a third illegitimate presidency is reversed.” The implications of such language are obvious - - a McCain presidential victory simply will never exist, and anyone who might declare that such a thing exists will be lying." Later in the piece, the author writes “If Obama officially wins, McCain is likely to challenge it, charging the Obama campaign with some of the very crimes engaged in by McCain himself. Our reaction should be exactly the same in the event of a McCain challenge as in the event of a McCain ‘victory.’ We should not sit back for even a split second and wonder how it will work out…We should be prepared already to immediately travel to Washington, D.C., head straight for the White House, occupy Lafayette Square Park, the Ellipse, and surrounding streets, block entrances, and shut the place down until Obama is recognized as the president elect or we are guaranteed a credible election with universal registration and hand-counted paper ballots. We may be there for days or weeks or months…We must show each other, and the nation, and the world that we have had enough, that we will not stand for one more stolen election, that we will not give in to fear, lies, theft, and intimidation…” Additionally, Rolling Stone magazine published a piece last week written by the “esteemed” Robert Kennedy Jr. Kennedy claims that Republican “operatives” around the country - - Secretaries Of State, Lieutenant Governors, County Clerks, and other elected officials - - have a well-coordinated system of disenfranchisement in place, even better than in 2004, and will be arbitrarily throwing-out untold numbers of ballots so as to “give it” to McCain.

Update, from Press Release: Berg v. Obama dismissed - Berg appealing to U. S. Supreme Court (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083. Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does? So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned. According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

See? We can have a rational discussion without ratcheting up the rhetoric. Let's see what happens tomorrow

It is not uncommon for a state or locality to pass a law which is later deemed unconstitutional and is in direct violation with existing case law on the matter (this doesn't just apply to abortion, but to a lot of issues). This is one of those situations. Tennessee does indeed have a law limiting abortion, but that law is in direct contrast with Roe and Doe and therefore, when/if challenged, will likely be struck down. There has not been one single state abortion ban (since 1973) which, when challenged in the Supreme Court, has been upheld. Yes, the short-term effect is that abortion is banned after 12 weeks in Tennessee. But if you look at Kansas, where George Tiller specialized in late-term abortions, in that state there are numerous abortion-limiting laws, yet Tiller is still in business (Abortion Care - George Tiller MD - Wichita, Kansas). Were a late-term abortionist to set up shop in Tennessee and challenge the law, based on past decisions of the court, the law would likely be deemed unconstitutional. From Tennessee Tennessee's unconstitutional and unenforceable ban outlaws abortions performed as early as twelve weeks. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-209 (Enacted 1997). Tennessee's ban is unconstitutional according to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. 530 U.S. 914 (2000). In Stenberg, the Court held that a similar ban, which lacked an exception to protect a woman's health and was written so broadly as to ban more than one procedure, placed an undue burden on a woman's right to choose.