Why Obama was disbarred.

[Diogenes]

The 0 in his first year far surpassed Dubya's blunders in 8.

As for the birth certificate issue, even if the 0 was born on US soil, he was raised in his early years overseas, away from American influences, in gross violation to the spirit of the natural born citizen clause.

Yes, but he doesn't even meet the LETTER of the natural born citizen clause. All research i've seen to date indicates that the father being an American citizen is an absolute must.

5 seconds of Google and wiki 'research' came up with the following:

May 1789, James Madison: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

Yes, i'm familiar with this particular exchange. It is in regards to a man who was born in the colonies, but went to England for quite some time, only to return to America After the war was over. It was argued that he therefore did not meet the criteria for being a US Citizen as he had not been Raised in the U.S and therefore had no loyalty to it.

Madison is expressing his opinion as to whether he was a citizen or not, which is a distinctly different thing from Article II "Natural Born Citizen", which is based on a Specific term derived from the Book "Law of Nations" by Emerich Vatell. The Law of England at the time was that Any child born of an English Father is automatically a British Subject.

Article II is ENTIRELY about loyalty. I would point out that the indians and black born in America were not even Citizens, let alone "Natural Born Citizens." You see, it really DID matter whether your parents were citizens or not. Even in England, You had to be Born OF a Noble house, not in one. (to be a peer.)

Or perhaps more relevant to the case at hand. In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. The AG's response:
our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

You leave out the fact that Prior to the United States, the people born in a country were SUBJECTS, not Citizens, and in that regard it Always behooved the Monarchy to claim them as his property. The United States Broke with that interpretation of the relationship between a man and his country. An American can renounce his citizenship, but a subject cannot. In any case, I hardly think Salmon P. Chase knew as much about the intent of the founders as did the founders themselves, and they are QUITE specific regarding their intentions that there should be no foreign influence in the Highest office of the land. I have quotes, which I will get to in due time if you find this topic worth discussing.

Or more recently, a 2009 memo to Congress from the Congressional Research Service states:
Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth"or" by birth.

Geeze, you throwing too much crap at me for me to answer all of it properly. I have answers to everything you've got, but they take time. I have to dig through my references until I find the appropriate part, so if you want to use a scattershot approach, it's going to get very messy and difficult for me to keep up with you.

Let's take the Naturalization act of 1790. Your reference implies that it's good enough for them, so I figure it ought to be good enough for you. This is what it says.

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: . . .

I will further point out, that at this time the mother's citizenship didn't matter at all. ONLY the father could transfer citizenship. According to the laws in existence at that time, the Wife's citizenship was automatically the same as the Husband's.

So, according to the Act of Congress you cited, it specifically excludes anyone who's Father have never been resident in the United States. That pretty much let's out Obama. His Father was not a resident, as the term was defined in 1790.

Now I will of course, point out that the meaning and intent of an Article Of the U.S. Constitution CANNOT be modified by an act of congress, so it really doesn't matter What they said in 1790, or any time subsequently, it requires a constitutional Amendment to change the meaning of any of the original terms. This is even true when the Act of Congress agrees with my side.

Furthermore, and lest there be any more deliberate confusion, under the 14th amendment all persons born within the United States are citizens at birth.

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to those born under the Jurisdiction of the United States. It does not grant Article II "Natural Born Citizen" status. The guy who WROTE the 14th Amendment even said that

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:

Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))

Here is also a link to a Lawyer who has researched this to the hilt.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

[jnaujok]

You could run your home off the grid if you really wanted to be free. Generators the right size to run a residential home aren't even that ridiculously expensive either. I'm afraid I don't quite follow where the electric grid crosses the line of plain old common sense, and oh my goodness no, SOCIALISM!!!!!

I didn't say this crossed the line. Maybe you read want you wanted to see. I said that we choose to take these things on collectively because they benefit many. Yes, you can choose to go off-grid with solar or a generator. No one is stopping you. But if you did that, and the power company or public utility still sent you a bill, wouldn't you be pissed off? Demanding that I pay for health care for which I receive no benefit crosses that line, the same as the utility sending you a bill for power you don't use.

Aren't hospitals with properly trained surgeons and staff a little difficult for an individual to afford as well?

Yes, they are, which is why some cities, for example the one I live in, Colorado Springs, choose to create publicly funded hospitals. However, in Colorado Springs, there is also a privately owned hospital that is, in general, considered to be of higher quality and better care. It receives no public funding, and no one person has to buy it. It's a business. It runs at (GASP) a profit. Medicine and health care can be a profitable business. And when it's run that way, the care and service and facilities (at least in this, admittedly anecdotal, case) are of higher quality than the publicly run facility.

In fact, the city is currently in the process of deciding whether to sell its publicly run hospital to a private corporation, because our city council has realized that a city knows jack squat about running a health care facility.

Is it really so radical to discuss possibly doing so collectively without being accused of wanting to rob you at gunpoint?

I never said discussing it was radical.

What's radical is when a group of 218 congressmen decided, against the will of 78% of the people (according to polls), to impose it on us, after refusing to fully discuss what it even was. Three hundred page addenda added at 2 AM to a 2000 page bill with a vote at 7AM when no one, and I mean no one who was voting, had even seen the addenda. That's not how the legislature was intended to work. Would you sign a contract without ever seeing the details? Our "representatives" repeatedly told us with pride that they had not, and would not read the bill before passing it.

Were we to have had an open, honest, all the facts on the table, both sides talking, publicly informed debate, and a majority of the people came to the conclusion that we really should have mandated health care purchase and that we need to throw people in jail who don't buy insurance... policed by no less of a compassionate group than the IRS. Well, then that would be democracy in action.

I, personally would despise the result, and the people who forgot the basis of our nation and traded their freedom for the false comfort of a cradle-to-grave government nursemaid, but at least the process would have been valid.

We didn't get that. We got it rammed down our throats with platitudes like, "We have to pass it so [the people] can find out what's in it."

That's tyranny, no matter how you slice it. That's why the Democrats lost 60 seats in the house and over half of the democrat senators up for election are going home. Americans tend not to like "representatives" that refuse to represent them. It's sort of how the system works.

Ah, that makes good sense, and is very logical. We shall promptly do away with the criminal public education system for stealing your rights and freedoms. After all, unlike infrastructure items, schools can be easily built and funded privately. Propping them up with tax dollars is in everyway just as much an affront to freedom and liberty as any form of basic public health insurance.

If your willing to declare the need to axe publicly funded primary education as equally important to stopping publicly funded health insurance I am at least willing to accept the consistency of your position, even if I do still disagree with your view.

I'd axe the federal Department of Education in a heartbeat. The last thing we ever needed in this country was the federal government running our education system. Every year that public schools have been run by Federal mandate, our kids have learned less and less and the U.S. has fallen farther and farther in the ranking of education around the world. And just so you don't think I'm saying this with no skin in the game, I have two kids in a charter school and my wife is a teacher at a public school. Trust me, I know more about the problems and nightmares of public schools than you can imagine. I ran for the school board to try and stop exactly this kind of dumbing down.

The federally controlled school system has given us nightmare after nightmare of dumbed down textbooks, and revisionist history. Do you really think a government is going to push curricula that echoed the beliefs of the Founding Fathers that the government is never to be trusted? That an armed society is a polite and stable society? That no government should ever have the power to directly tax its people? That all our freedoms come with the personal responsibility for their exercise?

Seriously, if you can't see the difference between a group paying for a road, that everyone uses freely to the benefit of all -- and holding that same group to ransom to pay for the health care of an individual, whether that person took any personal care and responsibility of their health, then I'm not the one who's being a blind ideologue here.

[bcglorf]

some cities, for example the one I live in, Colorado Springs, choose to create publicly funded hospitals. However, in Colorado Springs, there is also a privately owned hospital that is, in general, considered to be of higher quality and better care.

If you are willing to accept or tolerate the existence of publicly funded hospitals, then I think you and are much closer to being on the same page on the matter. I'm Canadian and our big fight up here that I keep pushing for is to allow for the existence of privately run hospitals. In most of our provinces, publicly run hospitals are more than common, they are granted an effective government enforced monopoly on all medical services. Of course, the saner people within our system have set things up such that 90% of all clinics are privately owned and operated, but send their bills to the public health system rather than the individual patients.

Anyways, I am working and fighting to get my government to allow both public and private hospitals to exist. There are different needs that both are able to better meet in my opinion. There are many low income families that would skip hospital visists altogether just to save money, that can be very bad with illnesses that are sensitive to how early they are caught and treated. There are also times though were important but non-life threatening surgery, like back and knee problems, have 3 year waiting lists in a public system and could be treated immediately privately for those willing to pay.

Three hundred page addenda added at 2 AM to a 2000 page bill with a vote at 7AM when no one, and I mean no one who was voting, had even seen the addenda. That's not how the legislature was intended to work.

I'd call that more offensive than shocking. It may not be how legislature should work, but it is assuredly the way it has been working through my entire adult life.

Were we to have had an open, honest, all the facts on the table, both sides talking, publicly informed debate, and a majority of the people came to the conclusion that we really should have mandated health care purchase and that we need to throw people in jail who don't buy insurance... policed by no less of a compassionate group than the IRS. Well, then that would be democracy in action.

I think again we agree very much on this. I would despise it every bit as much as you as well if the result was a ban on private medicine akin to what I 'enjoy' in my province. My original point and purpose in touching on health care started with the lauding of Palin's "Death Panels" campaign. From all that I watched of the 'debate' on health care, the entire strategy of Palin's 'side' appeared to be to sabatoge any and all efforts to get information out on the actual bill. Rather than discuss why tax funded insurance was bad, and the text of the bill was harmful, they campaigned almost exclusively on how Obama wanted you to pay to have your own grandma euthanized.

The federally controlled school system has given us nightmare after nightmare of dumbed down textbooks, and revisionist history. Do you really think a government is going to push curricula that echoed the beliefs of the Founding Fathers that the government is never to be trusted?

Again we agree. The dumbing down of my own system from when I was a kid to when my own kids entered has me stricken. My problem comes in finding the better alternative. A 100% purely private education system is also equally vulnerable to dumbing down, bias and revisionist history. A purely corporate sponsored education system will have very interesting take on things like the credit crunch, tax policy and all manners of events throughout history. Pakistan's 'private' education system ended up being 99.9% funded by Saudi Wahhabi groups which turned them into jihadist recruitment and indoctrination centers. I believe that publicly funded education, particularly in democratic states, is a necessary counter balance. As I equally believe that private education must be allowed to exist alongside as a counterbalance of it's own.

That same logic falls on my support for side by side public and private health care options. A purely private health system just leads to individuals getting shafted by big business instead of big government, and health care isn't like most businesses where you can just decide I don't really need to get that chemo therapy. I'm a strong believer in government and private business being important counter balances to one another's influences. The individuals get to influence government with their votes, and they get to vote for businesses with their dollars.

[bcglorf]

In this regard, she could hardly have been worse than Bush who did not know the difference between Shite, Sunni and Kurd till AFTER he'd already committed US troops into the conflict.

I'm afraid I am absolutely certain that Palin didn't either at that same point in time. I think her failing that same low bar just confirms my reasons for rejecting her as a candidate. Bush's failure of understanding there was one of his absolute lowest points, and there's a lot to pick from. I would defend him slightly though by stating that he did appreciate the difference before committing the troops. I think it was about a month prior to the invasion being launched that a group of Iraqi exiles where meeting with Bush and where utterly shocked to spend more than half the meeting having to describe the differences and why they mattered. Presumably he then knew this at least a week or two BEFORE boots hit the ground in Iraq. He still went on to have Feith steadfastly refuse to plan for any scenario except one that had Sunni and Shia Iraqi's living in amicable harmony immediately after Baghdads fall and forever after. But I digress, alot. The point is I have seen nothing to suggest that Palin would have done any better, and many reasons to believe she would have been carrying on in even greater ignorance, which is staggeringly hard to imagine...

The "Death Panels" meme is like a slap in the face to a hysterical person.
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" --Sarah Palin

I guess it's ironic that the Palin family used to hustle their kids across the border to play Russian roulette before a "Death Panel". Well, maybe ironic isn't the right word after all...

When the free market is allowed to work (without being co-opted by monopolies and rent-seekers) it produces a better product, in higher quantity and at a better cost, than does any form of govermental run program.
Mostly, my prescription drug prices here in socialized Canada demonstrate that corporate interests sometimes don't always provide the lowest cost to the consumer though. I'm not advocating for the abolition of private health care, nor was 'Obamacare'. It was base level health insurance. Private hospitals where to continue on. Private insurance for those wanting care beyond the base level and not wanting to face a 'death panel' was to continue on. All I advocate for is that there is a benefit to having both. Ironically in my country it means I'm the one fighting FOR privatized hospitals, I very much want them in my province. I just don't see why that should require the abolition of any public system. More to the original point though, I don't see any intelligence to Palin's 'Death Panel' characterization. It's only purpose was to emotionally alienate people from having any discussion on the matter in the first place. I don't consider that comendable, apparanetly you do. I think we're gonna simply have to agree to disagree on it as I don't see much chance of persuading you and am quite sure of my own convictions on the matter.

What conspiracy? The left DON'T CARE if he meets article II "Natural Born Citizenship" requirements or not.

I think we may need a reboot to see if we even agree on fundamental basic facts. Do you accept that Obama was born in Hawaii? Do you believe that Hawaii has on record his original and fully valid birth certificate? Do you agree that those facts qualify him, at birth, as an American citizen?

I am assuming those are all answered with yes. In which case I am attempting to understand that your argument is that despite being a full American citizen from birth, Obama's father not being an American citizen still disqualifies him from Natural Born Status as it applies to his Presidential candidacy?

[jnaujok]

If you are willing to accept or tolerate the existence of publicly funded hospitals, then I think you and are much closer to being on the same page on the matter.

Except the public hospital in this city was founded in the late 1870's (if memory serves) when we were a frontier town, based almost wholly on the gold mining industry, and very few health care facilites existed. The city, swimming in revenue from the gold being mined, created a new hospital to provide service to the miners in the area. When Spencer Penrose came to the city, he found the public hospital disgusting and built his own to provide better service to the people. Both hospitals have survived to today, but way back in the 50's, the public hospital was largely turned over to an internal board after it was found the city was running it into the ground. Since then, the public hospital (Memorial) became, at least, self-suficient, even turning a profit every now and then. This only happened when the government took its fingers out of running the hospital. By this time next year, Memorial hospital will be a private company, and the city government will have nothing to do with it.

That doesn't lend a lot of support to your theory of a public / private competition being a good system. Government control led to neglect, poor care, and crumbling facilities. Private control has led to expansion, great service, and the highest rated care in the Western U.S.

Anyways, I am working and fighting to get my government to allow both public and private hospitals to exist.

Congratulations. I hope you succeed, and then I hope you stand in slack-jawed amazement at what a privately run system can do compared to a publicly run one. When you are competing for your existence, there is incentive to always improve. When you know, no matter what happens, you'll still be there tomorrow doing the same thing, there's no incentive for improvement. That's the difference between private and publicly run facilities.

Three hundred page addenda added at 2 AM to a 2000 page bill with a vote at 7AM when no one, and I mean no one who was voting, had even seen the addenda. That's not how the legislature was intended to work.

I'd call that more offensive than shocking. It may not be how legislature should work, but it is assuredly the way it has been working through my entire adult life.

Just because we have been boiling the frog for more than a century doesn't mean that we can't look around and realize that we're sitting in boiling water. And then we can vote to back that up, thus the "2010 revolution" that actually exceeded the 1994 "Republican Revolution" as far as seats changing hands.

My original point and purpose in touching on health care started with the lauding of Palin's "Death Panels" campaign. From all that I watched of the 'debate' on health care, the entire strategy of Palin's 'side' appeared to be to sabatoge any and all efforts to get information out on the actual bill.

I disagree. If anyone was trying to hide what was in the bill, it was the democrat side. Palin may have coined the colorful term "Death Panels" to describe the health care rationing panels that would decide whether a person deserved to receive treatment, but that is, in fact, not only in the bill, but a logical conclusion of any federally funded care system.

When the government pays for your health, then, like any system of funding, they will look for ways to save money. They must decide if it is "worth it" to give grandma that new hip or the expensive cancer medicine or heart surgery, when it will give her only a few more years of life. Obama himself said in a speech, "Maybe Grandma doesn't get the surgery, maybe she gets the pill instead. We have to make sacrifices."

Strangely enough, Obama, and the members of Congress exempted themselves from this wonderful new system...

Paul Krugman was just on TV a week or two ago talking about the rationing boards, and he admitted that these are the very "Death Panels" that they repeatedly denied were in the bill.

Rather than discuss why tax funded insurance was bad, and the text of the bill was harmful, they campaigned almost exclusively on how Obama wanted you to pay to have your own grandma euthanized.

Frankly, most of the conservative shows were screaming loudly about what was in the bill. I know I was trying to talk to my co-workers who refused to believe that the clauses I was citing were in the bill, even after I showed them, word for word, the text of the bill, I would still get, "But that can't be what they mean!"

Obamacare contains clauses that will make private insurance more expensive, harder to get, and nearly impossible for individuals to purchase. This was done intentionally, because the only remaining alternative will be to go onto the "public option" plan in the bill. Imagine running a business where your competition gets to force the definition of your services and what you absolutely must offer. Then that competitor says those rules don't apply to them, and offer a more reasonable package for half the price. How long do you think you could stay in business? No, Obamacare isn't a single payer system, but it will cause one to come into being by making it impossible to choose any other provider of health insurance within 10 years.

Again we agree. The dumbing down of my own system from when I was a kid to when my own kids entered has me stricken. My problem comes in finding the better alternative.

Well, prior to the federal control of the schools here in America, we had community cooperatives that would build school buildings and families with children would pay into a fund to hire teachers to come in and teach. Religious groups (Catholics in particular) would also open schools to teach children with both secular and non-secular knowledge.

Personally, I'm not sure such a system would be completely workable in this day and age, where high school level learning is a bare minimum for education, as opposed to the era of the late 19th century.

Thus, I'm convinced that our best choice at this point is a Voucher system. This is where the state collects taxes as it does now, but rather than run their own education system, they merely provide a voucher to parents for their child's education. For example, here in Colorado, PPR (Per Pupil Revenue) is just shy of $7000 per student. I have little doubt that were we to abolish all the levels of administration in the CDE (Colorado Dept. of Education) as well, that the number would be closer to $12,000 per student, but I'll use $7000 to make my point.

Thus, each student/parent, armed with a $7000 voucher for education, can now take that to any school in their area and exchange it for their child's education. Here in Colorado Springs, we have the Colorado Springs School, which is a super-high-end private school. Their tuition is about $10,000 a year. If I had the choice of sending my kids there, with a $7000 voucher, that becomes only a $3000 premium which I could handle a lot better than the $10,000 I'd have to pay now. Not to mention that I'd *still* be paying that $7000 to a public school that my kids wouldn't even be attending via my taxes that I pay whether I use the public schools or not. I can't afford $20,000 extra dollars a year, even with how good the school is, but I might be able to swing $6,000 a year.

The voucher system would immediately create competition for education dollars. When it was implemented in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, it was largely minority families that took advantage of it, and those kids saw their grades and test results soar. Of course, the hugely successful program that was loved by every parent was cut immediately by the democrat governor Jim Doyle within days of taking office. Since then, scores have plummeted and all the improvements have disappeared.

When there is open competition between schools, they must excel to survive. Competition thus fosters the greatest return. Additionally, private schools offer alternatives for special needs students, as private schools that would serve special needs students would arise and parents would be able to move their children as needed, to the school that would serve their children best.

Were a school to arise that taught, say, white supremacy and holocaust denial, I have no doubt that the school would, sadly, have a few attendees. However, very few parents would keep their kids at such a school for very long, and would move them to a different school. Would we end up with schools that teach Creationist versions of history? Again, sadly, yes. Would we end up with schools that teach the feminist/progressive model of history (The founding fathers were evil slave owning rapists) -- yes, I'm sure we would, and I'm sure some parents would send their kids to those schools.

But the fact is, it is the schools that provide students with a strong foundation of knowledge, tempered with character education, and based on real history, learning, and science, that will give those kids the best basis for their life, and those kids will become parents that send their kids to those schools.

In the end, the schools that produce the most successful students will become the most successful schools. It happens in secondary education (think Harvard, think MIT) and it would happen in primary education. Are there colleges out there that have off-the-wall agendas? Of course there are, but they are tiny. The truly successful schools are those that produce the best results.

[bcglorf]

That doesn't lend a lot of support to your theory of a public / private competition being a good system. Government control led to neglect, poor care, and crumbling facilities. Private control has led to expansion, great service, and the highest rated care in the Western U.S.

I am again not arguing that public/private competition would/will lead to the victory of the superior public system. I'm just saying that the low income family that opted to save money by not carrying health insurance might well choose the public system when their child suddenly requires $40,000 worth of cancer treatments. My Aunt is a nurse in Florida, and is pretty emphatic about not needing a public system for this though because they never turn anyone away. It is currently just expected that many patients racking up $40,000 in debt for procedures will not be good for it and the hospital ends up eating the loss, passing that cost on obviously to all the other patients. Again, if the public system is simply never appealing to anyone, nobody should be required to use it as it is in my area. The flip side though is that I very much do see a need for basic medical services to those that can't afford it, and I don't see a 100% private system meeting that need.

When you know, no matter what happens, you'll still be there tomorrow doing the same thing, there's no incentive for improvement. That's the difference between private and publicly run facilities.

Believe me, I work in government surrounded by unions. I appreciate the flaws inherent there very deeply. When you are private, and the only thing that matters is turning a profit, you won't do anything that doesn't have money in it for the company. I stand by the need for a balance between those two ills, and competition is the mechanism I think is best.

Just because we have been boiling the frog for more than a century doesn't mean that we can't look around and realize that we're sitting in boiling water.

Agreed, it's just a dauntingly hard beast to tackle and not something that I saw as particularly a problem here more than it has been for a long time making it important, but IMHO a side topic.

When the government pays for your health, then, like any system of funding, they will look for ways to save money. They must decide if it is "worth it" to give grandma that new hip or the expensive cancer medicine or heart surgery, when it will give her only a few more years of life.

I still think the only real problem here is potentially the bills wording. The current system before the bill was dreamt up looked little different. When grandma needed a new hip and came to the government, under the old system the death panel was a simple permanent sign with the two letters "NO" on it. As long as the private system is left intact then the entire line of complaint there is so much nothingness. If the real problem is changes to the private system, then changing the bill or a new bill addressing only a public health insurance plan would be better?

Thus, I'm convinced that our best choice at this point is a Voucher system.
Amen.

I see base level public health insurance as the nearest equivalent for medicine. If you want to get prescription for your sore throat, sorry, you'll need private insurance. If your feet got run over by the lawnmower though the ER will take care of that for you, but if you don't want to wait in a recovery room with 20 other beds afterward that'll be extra. Strangely, as far apart as the Canadian and US systems appear, the live people working within the system on both sides are pushing it back to middle by their normal practices. As I've said before, virtually all clinics around me are privately owned and operated businesses. Prescription medicines are not covered by the system, and if you want crutches there's a charge. In the US ER's virtually never turn away anyone with serious injuries, even if they are non-citizens without a penny to their name. Any costs they can't recover just raise prices for everyone else.

[Ivy Matt]

I am attempting to understand that your argument is that despite being a full American citizen from birth, Obama's father not being an American citizen still disqualifies him from Natural Born Status as it applies to his Presidential candidacy?

That's about the size of it, yes.

The argument is that the founding fathers consulted Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations when drawing up the Constitution, and that Vattel defined "natural-born citizen" as one born in a country of parents who are citizens. Vattel emphasized that the father, in particular, should be a citizen.

An interpretation of the US Constitution based on original intent would seem to favor the idea that the sitting President does not qualify. On the other hand, a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, not to mention a "Living Constitution" interpretation, would seem to favor the idea the sitting President qualifies, as the requirements for US citizenship have gradually liberalized over time. Some of these liberalizations are included in constitutional amendments, but no amendment has explicitly defined/redefined the phrase "natural-born citizen". Whether a redefinition of "citizen" implies a redefinition of "natural-born citizen" is another matter of dispute, as one can (and could) be naturalized a citizen without being a natural-born citizen.

Given that the only people qualified to deliver a legally binding opinion on the meaning of the phrase "natural-born citizen" as it occurs in the US Constitution are the members of the US Supreme Court, and they have so far refused to consider any case concerning this question on its merits, I'd say the question of whether or not Barack Obama meets the constitutional qualifications to be President will probably always remain a question.

[jnaujok]

I see base level public health insurance as the nearest equivalent for medicine. If you want to get prescription for your sore throat, sorry, you'll need private insurance. If your feet got run over by the lawnmower though the ER will take care of that for you, but if you don't want to wait in a recovery room with 20 other beds afterward that'll be extra. Strangely, as far apart as the Canadian and US systems appear, the live people working within the system on both sides are pushing it back to middle by their normal practices. As I've said before, virtually all clinics around me are privately owned and operated businesses. Prescription medicines are not covered by the system, and if you want crutches there's a charge. In the US ER's virtually never turn away anyone with serious injuries, even if they are non-citizens without a penny to their name. Any costs they can't recover just raise prices for everyone else.

How about this then. We allow people to set aside a medical savings account (and not the current travesty that the government steals if you don't use it every year) with tax-free money from your paycheck. From this account you can pay for any medical procedures, prescription drugs, etc. using a card that takes the money straight from that account and pays it to the doctor.

In addition, you can use that money to purchase catastrophic coverage for all amounts *larger* than the balance of your account. In other words, if you put into the account $300 a month (about what I pay for my family's insurance now), then when the account is empty, about $200 of that goes to pay for a catastrophic insurance plan to cover all bills. However, as the balance builds up, say to $1000, then the plan cost starts to drop off in price, as now I can pay for most of the mundane things out of the account instead of hitting insurance for them. Once I've put away about $5000 in the account, the insurance is down to about $25 a month, because they really never cover anything except for an emergency.

That way, once I've paid up to say $10,000 into the account, the insurance company only will be covering major, catastrophic injury, something that about 4% of people ever get.

The doctors, on the other hand, are not having to deal with insurance companies and paperwork, but instead are getting cash on the barrelhead. How quickly is that going to lower costs? When you walk into the ER and slap down that card, they know immediately that they will be getting at least X amount of cash. On the flip side of that, insurance companies aren't having to deal with penny pinching every $20 checkup and antibiotic sore throat regimen. How much money will that save them? How much cheaper will care become?

Back in the 70's (when I was young) the doctor I went to had a big sign in his waiting room. It said things like: "X-Ray $4, Broken Arm: $100, Broken leg: $150, Checkup: $10" Admittedly that was before the Carter administration jacked up prices...

You never see that in America today, because two people with the same problem will likely pay vastly different amounts based on their insurance and the doctor will get vastly different payments for them. I'd like to see us get back to doctor's offices with a fixed price list. Seriously, how many other businesses do you go to where you get the service and then find out the price later?

If you walk into a doctor today and pay cash, you'll find that the rates are often half or *less* than what they are if they have to go through insurance. Just saving them the hassle of filling out forms is worth the difference to them, much less the haggling with an insurance company.

Medical Savings Accounts are the way to go for 95% of the people.

But wait, I hear you say, what about the other 5%, the ones who *can't* put away money each year.

Ideally, I'd say, they'd have family, a church, or a charity that would provide for them. Realistically, we've gone past that point. So I'd say, if you need that kind of care, you file with the government for inability to pay, and they work with clinics that offer reduced prices (think doctors being able to take their time at the clinics as a tax write-off) and you get to go to those clinics for routine care. The government works with pharma companies to buy bulk or reduced rate medicine, or reward them with a 5 year patent extension on a drug if they donate enough of the drug to supply those who can't afford it. Is it the exact same level of health care as if you were rich? No, it's not. That's the consequence of being poor. You don't get to drive a lamborghini when you're poor either. Being poor sucks. It's an incentive to get off your ass and work to not be poor any more.

In other words, at this point, I know it's more or less hopeless to get the government completely out of the Medicare business, but I'd like to see it vastly reduced in scope.

[Diogenes]

In this regard, she could hardly have been worse than Bush who did not know the difference between Shite, Sunni and Kurd till AFTER he'd already committed US troops into the conflict.

I'm afraid I am absolutely certain that Palin didn't either at that same point in time. I think her failing that same low bar just confirms my reasons for rejecting her as a candidate. Bush's failure of understanding there was one of his absolute lowest points, and there's a lot to pick from. I would defend him slightly though by stating that he did appreciate the difference before committing the troops. I think it was about a month prior to the invasion being launched that a group of Iraqi exiles where meeting with Bush and where utterly shocked to spend more than half the meeting having to describe the differences and why they mattered. Presumably he then knew this at least a week or two BEFORE boots hit the ground in Iraq. He still went on to have Feith steadfastly refuse to plan for any scenario except one that had Sunni and Shia Iraqi's living in amicable harmony immediately after Baghdads fall and forever after. But I digress, alot. The point is I have seen nothing to suggest that Palin would have done any better, and many reasons to believe she would have been carrying on in even greater ignorance, which is staggeringly hard to imagine...

You have simply been listening too much to what the Palin Haters have been saying. You likewise put too much emphasis on foreign afairs vis a vis local differences. How many people know of the Hmong? The Sihk? The Uyghurs? The Ainu? Without specifically looking them up? And What need?

The thing I liked about Reagan was that he was motivated by Principles. He believed that People wanted to be free, and if they were allowed to prosper they would. He believed these principles applied to all peoples, because it was inherent in the human spirit. As a result, the specifics of each demographic was not important in the big picture view.

To summarize, if you "get" the big picture, it is more important than the details. A President can learn about specific cultures when it is important for him to know about specific cultures. Palin already understands the big picture, the details are not so important as people think they are.

The "Death Panels" meme is like a slap in the face to a hysterical person.
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" --Sarah Palin

I guess it's ironic that the Palin family used to hustle their kids across the border to play Russian roulette before a "Death Panel". Well, maybe ironic isn't the right word after all...

This is a perfect example of the Bile and Hatred of Palin which has been spewed by her critics. They fail to note that Whitehorse (Canada) was the closest facility providing medical care, and they also fail to note that it wasn't until 1972 that Whitehorse was made a part of the Nationalized Medical system. All the Palin emergencies took place in the 1960s.

My friend, you've been played by the media.

When the free market is allowed to work (without being co-opted by monopolies and rent-seekers) it produces a better product, in higher quantity and at a better cost, than does any form of govermental run program.
Mostly, my prescription drug prices here in socialized Canada demonstrate that corporate interests sometimes don't always provide the lowest cost to the consumer though.

This is a phenomenon that I have always found interesting. American Manufacturers of Pharmaceuticals will sell their products in Canada far cheaper than they will here in the United States. Canada has forced price controls on them, and they have accepted them. If I recall properly, when this first occurred, Canada threatened to revoke their patent protection if they didn't comply. This would allow companies to set up production facilities in Canada to manufacture the exact same drug, and sell it world wide, thereby undercutting the Original Manufacture.
(because they would not have had to pay for any of the research and development costs)

I believe the American companies, realizing that this would completely destroy their business, have accepted a "devils bargain" with Canada, which resulted in the U.S. consumers subsidizing the drug purchases of Canada and other countries. So once again, threats of force and other forms of intimidation were used to advance the agenda of socialist minded people.

I'm not advocating for the abolition of private health care, nor was 'Obamacare'. It was base level health insurance. Private hospitals where to continue on. Private insurance for those wanting care beyond the base level and not wanting to face a 'death panel' was to continue on. All I advocate for is that there is a benefit to having both. Ironically in my country it means I'm the one fighting FOR privatized hospitals, I very much want them in my province. I just don't see why that should require the abolition of any public system. More to the original point though, I don't see any intelligence to Palin's 'Death Panel' characterization. It's only purpose was to emotionally alienate people from having any discussion on the matter in the first place. I don't consider that comendable, apparanetly you do. I think we're gonna simply have to agree to disagree on it as I don't see much chance of persuading you and am quite sure of my own convictions on the matter.

Should the goal be to have "Public Hospitals"? Or should the goal be to make sure that anyone can receive medical care? As long as the main goal is obtained, what difference does it make as to HOW it's obtained? I can name to you half a dozen people that I know personally that receive medical care (some of them pushing into the several hundreds of thousands of Dollars range) here in this town. All of them are broke, deadbeat neer-do-wells, and NONE of them will ever pay any of those bills. I know people who have had heart surgery, Dialysis, broken bones set, Hospitalization, eye surgery, stroke care, etc., and not a one of them was refused, nor will one of them ever be refused even though they've never paid a cent for their medical care.

What conspiracy? The left DON'T CARE if he meets article II "Natural Born Citizenship" requirements or not.

I think we may need a reboot to see if we even agree on fundamental basic facts. Do you accept that Obama was born in Hawaii? Do you believe that Hawaii has on record his original and fully valid birth certificate? Do you agree that those facts qualify him, at birth, as an American citizen?

"Do you accept that Obama was born in Hawaii?"

Honest answer, I don't know. Originally I believed he was, but subsequent information led me to put this into the "I don't know." category. You see, Hawaii will issue birth certificates to people who were not born there. This is something that I wouldn't have believed until I had been shown the Hawaiian statues that permits birth certificates to be issued for people not born there.


Also check this one. Note the "Hawaii.gov" url. Note also that you can register a birth on the say-so of a relative.



"Do you believe that Hawaii has on record his original and fully valid birth certificate?"

Again, I don't know. The circumstantial evidence so far argues against it. This for example.


"Do you agree that those facts qualify him, at birth, as an American citizen?"

I'm thinking he's probably a citizen, (Though some point out that according to the law in effect at the time, Stanley Ann Dunham was not old enough to transfer even basic citizenship status if he was born out of the country.) But I highly doubt he is a "Natural Born Citizen" as defined by Article II of the US Constitution.

At this point, the only way I can see that he could meet the letter of the law is for his father to be an American Citizen. There is speculation that Barack's Father is in fact Frank Marshall Davis, and Not Barack Obama Sr.

I am assuming those are all answered with yes.

Sorry.

In which case I am attempting to understand that your argument is that despite being a full American citizen from birth, Obama's father not being an American citizen still disqualifies him from Natural Born Status as it applies to his Presidential candidacy?

Because it does not conform to the requirements of the legal term "Natural Born Citizen." The Article II meaning REQUIRES both parents (and especially the father) to be an American Citizen prior to birth. The intent was to eliminate divided loyalties. I can give you a dozen quotes from the founders to indicate that they wanted absolutely NO FOREIGN INFLUENCE in the highest office.

I will present the evidence (over a period of time) if you really want to see it. The First place to start is Article II itself which states

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


I call your attention to the fact that they use two different terms. Terms which many people try to assert mean the exact same thing. If they meant the exact same thing, why use two different terms?

Obviously they DO NOT mean the same thing. A "Natural Born Citizen" means something different from just ordinary "citizen." Many people define it as "being born to no other allegiance. "

Stay tuned, and I will show more proof.

[bcglorf]

This is a perfect example of the Bile and Hatred of Palin which has been spewed by her critics. They fail to note that Whitehorse (Canada) was the closest facility providing medical care, and they also fail to note that it wasn't until 1972 that Whitehorse was made a part of the Nationalized Medical system. All the Palin emergencies took place in the 1960s.

My friend, you've been played by the media.

And going further:

"Do you accept that Obama was born in Hawaii?"
Honest answer, I don't know.

Your "being played by the media" comment is more irony than I can handle. Sorry, but I'm gonna give up now.

[Diogenes]

This is a perfect example of the Bile and Hatred of Palin which has been spewed by her critics. They fail to note that Whitehorse (Canada) was the closest facility providing medical care, and they also fail to note that it wasn't until 1972 that Whitehorse was made a part of the Nationalized Medical system. All the Palin emergencies took place in the 1960s.

My friend, you've been played by the media.

And going further:

"Do you accept that Obama was born in Hawaii?"
Honest answer, I don't know.

Your "being played by the media" comment is more irony than I can handle. Sorry, but I'm gonna give up now.

I thought you might, and I was worried that I was spending too much time tracking down info and creating links that were likely not going to get viewed anyways.

But before you go, could you explain what you mean a little more clearly? I am having a hard time grasping your contention that Irony is somehow involved. It seems as though you are saying *I'm* getting played by the media, and i'm just not seeing it. Two of the links I gave you were to Hawaii.gov, and are official state statutes. An Official government website that allows you to view State statutes which are in effect could hardly be construed as media.

From My perspective, I think I reasonably and accurately answered every point you mentioned, and I backed up my answers with a copious quantity of references. If there is a better way to present information, (in textual form) then I simply do not know what it is.

[bcglorf]

This is a perfect example of the Bile and Hatred of Palin which has been spewed by her critics. They fail to note that Whitehorse (Canada) was the closest facility providing medical care, and they also fail to note that it wasn't until 1972 that Whitehorse was made a part of the Nationalized Medical system. All the Palin emergencies took place in the 1960s.

My friend, you've been played by the media.

And going further:

"Do you accept that Obama was born in Hawaii?"
Honest answer, I don't know.

Your "being played by the media" comment is more irony than I can handle. Sorry, but I'm gonna give up now.

I thought you might, and I was worried that I was spending too much time tracking down info and creating links that were likely not going to get viewed anyways.

But before you go, could you explain what you mean a little more clearly? I am having a hard time grasping your contention that Irony is somehow involved. It seems as though you are saying *I'm* getting played by the media, and i'm just not seeing it. Two of the links I gave you were to Hawaii.gov, and are official state statutes. An Official government website that allows you to view State statutes which are in effect could hardly be construed as media.

From My perspective, I think I reasonably and accurately answered every point you mentioned, and I backed up my answers with a copious quantity of references. If there is a better way to present information, (in textual form) then I simply do not know what it is.

The hospital records of Palin's visits to Canadian hospitals are hardly 'media' either, but you dismiss claims regarding none the less as so much media bias. For all the links you've been given, and passed on regarding Hawaii's birth certificate process you miss two very important things. Firstly, it automatically disqualifies everyone ever born in Hawaii as well. More importantly, I find it hard to believe you interpret Hawaii's birth certificate procedures as allowing those born outside Hawaii to ask Hawaii to issue a birth certificate listing Hawaii as the place of birth!

One second you trumpet how Palin's own admission of using Canadian health services as not only irrelevant, but as a media scam that was fallen for. The next second your talking about how Obama wasn't even born in Hawaii, despite the existence of a Hawaiian birth certificate declaring that he was. If those are your 'standards' there is no penetrating our differences.

[Diogenes]

This is a perfect example of the Bile and Hatred of Palin which has been spewed by her critics. They fail to note that Whitehorse (Canada) was the closest facility providing medical care, and they also fail to note that it wasn't until 1972 that Whitehorse was made a part of the Nationalized Medical system. All the Palin emergencies took place in the 1960s.

My friend, you've been played by the media.

And going further:

"Do you accept that Obama was born in Hawaii?"
Honest answer, I don't know.

Your "being played by the media" comment is more irony than I can handle. Sorry, but I'm gonna give up now.

I thought you might, and I was worried that I was spending too much time tracking down info and creating links that were likely not going to get viewed anyways.

But before you go, could you explain what you mean a little more clearly? I am having a hard time grasping your contention that Irony is somehow involved. It seems as though you are saying *I'm* getting played by the media, and i'm just not seeing it. Two of the links I gave you were to Hawaii.gov, and are official state statutes. An Official government website that allows you to view State statutes which are in effect could hardly be construed as media.

From My perspective, I think I reasonably and accurately answered every point you mentioned, and I backed up my answers with a copious quantity of references. If there is a better way to present information, (in textual form) then I simply do not know what it is.

The hospital records of Palin's visits to Canadian hospitals are hardly 'media' either, but you dismiss claims regarding none the less as so much media bias.

No one is disputing that she went to a Canadian hospital. She was accused of being a hypocrite for doing so because everyone knows that the Canadian health care system is nationalized, and she opposes nationalizing health care.

The unfair part of the media reports is the facts they LEAVE OUT of the report. The Hospital she went to was closer to where she lived than an American Hospital, AND it was NOT part of the Nationalized Health service when she went there. (in the 1960s)

For all the links you've been given, and passed on regarding Hawaii's birth certificate process you miss two very important things. Firstly, it automatically disqualifies everyone ever born in Hawaii as well.

Huh? You mean it calls into question their legitimacy? Sure it does if they try to pawn off a state issued computer printout as proof. But if they present an ACTUAL birth certificate signed by a witness to the event that they were indeed BORN in Hawaii, all questions of legitimacy are resolved. Not a very high standard of proof is required if you ask me. This is what one looks like.





This is what a REAL 1961 (born in the exact same hospital at the same time and with the exact preceding number with obama) Hawaiian birth certificate looks like. If you will notice, it was signed by a doctor who witnessed the birth. It is legally a signed affidavit stating that these persons really were born in Hawaii.

Why in the world would a man refuse to produce one of these when his very legitimacy is being questioned? Why would a man refuse to produce one of these when the officers in his army are refusing to obey their commanders because they don't believe he is legitimate? Why would a man spend over a million dollars in legal maneuvering to block any and all attempts to see this document? Well, one answer is because he probably hasn't got one and therefore has no other choice.

More importantly, I find it hard to believe you interpret Hawaii's birth certificate procedures as allowing those born outside Hawaii to ask Hawaii to issue a birth certificate listing Hawaii as the place of birth!

This is what the statute says.

"Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."


I read that to mean a child not born in Hawaii can get a Hawaiian birth certificate.

One second you trumpet how Palin's own admission of using Canadian health services as not only irrelevant, but as a media scam that was fallen for. The next second your talking about how Obama wasn't even born in Hawaii, despite the existence of a Hawaiian birth certificate declaring that he was. If those are your 'standards' there is no penetrating our differences.

I hate to quibble, but Obama presented a "Certification of Live Birth", not a "Birth Certificate."

A "certification" is simply the state CLAIMING you were born there. It is not proof that you really were. The problem with accepting a state's CLAIM on a birth certificate is that states will LIE about it. (especially Hawaii.)

Yeah, that sounds pretty silly doesn't it? Well i've got proof. I have TWO birth certificates. I have the one I was born with, and I have the one the state gave me AFTER I was adopted. The state will not reveal what my original birth certificate says because the adoption judge ordered that record sealed. If I present a "certified" birth certificate nowadays, it has to be the "modified" one. The one that is not the truth.


I am perfectly willing to mail you a copy of both of my birth certificates if you will leave a mailing address in the private message area.(I would post images of them online, but I don't want the crazies causing me grief.) My salient point is, you cannot accept a computer record at face value.

[bcglorf]

I read that to mean a child not born in Hawaii can get a Hawaiian birth certificate.

But I went further and specified a Hawaiian birth certificate indicating Hawaii as the place of birth. I doubt it matters to you though.

This is what a REAL 1961 (born in the exact same hospital at the same time and with the exact preceding number with obama) Hawaiian birth certificate looks like.

But, the top of your image reads "Certificate of Live Birth".

I hate to quibble, but Obama presented a "Certification of Live Birth", not a "Birth Certificate."

You've lost me and I've lost my desire to care anyways.

[Diogenes]

I read that to mean a child not born in Hawaii can get a Hawaiian birth certificate.

But I went further and specified a Hawaiian birth certificate indicating Hawaii as the place of birth. I doubt it matters to you though.

Excuse me, I should have said a "Certification of live Birth." This stuff gets confusing. It's exactly like the time Microsoft developed Windows Explorer and bundled it with their Windows software. They got sued by competing Web Surfing software companies (Netscape I think) They then directed their staff to name the Main Windows kernel file "Explorer."

Their lawyers than tried to tell the judge that the Browser and Operating system were inseparable, and as proof, they showed him that they were both called "Explorer". After a lot of people pointed out that Windows originally came WITHOUT "Windows Explorer" the judge didn't buy any of it.

Anyway, Anyone born in or out of Hawaii can get the document Barack offered. (CertificaTION of live birth) Only people actually born IN Hawaii can get a "Birth Certificate."

This is what a REAL 1961 (born in the exact same hospital at the same time and with the exact preceding number with obama) Hawaiian birth certificate looks like.

But, the top of your image reads "Certificate of Live Birth".

I hate to quibble, but Obama presented a "Certification of Live Birth", not a "Birth Certificate."

You've lost me and I've lost my desire to care anyways.

A "Certificate" is a piece of paper which "certifies" or attests that the information contained therein is true.

A "CertificaTION" is an assurance from someone that something is true.


Yeah, it's intentionally confusing because the language sounds so similar, but there is a definite difference.

Anyway, I don't think you are being fair, but there is no law that says you have to be. I understand that you don't wish to discuss this any further and so I won't bother you with it any more. I wished I had known how pointless it was for me to find all that stuff so I could have saved myself some time. Of course, What I did present is only a small part of the information that I have amassed.